“He [ the evil one] has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn [go the other way]…and I would heal [minds] them.” [Jesus]
John 12:40
If a person, an evil James Bond type villain, really wanted to do damage, I mean, real damage, all they would have to do is own a DNA testing company. Man, they could play all sorts of psychological games, biological games, and utilize the information in sundry evil ways. A villain could literally link an entire population “on paper” to peoples, lands, families and most importantly, TRIBES, WHO DON'T COME FROM THIS LAND, OR WHOSE ANCESTORS HAVE NEVER BEEN ON THIS LAND until after 1900. A villain could change the racial designation of a people and literally trick them into adopting a heritage that is not even theirs.
For example, when the “settlers” came here in 1620, my family was called, “Indians.” After 1779 we became, “Indians not taxed.” In the 1790 Opelousas census we became, “Mulattoes.” Then FREE People of color. Then Creoles, Octroons, Negros, Colored, Black and now an attempt at “African” American. We are just Attakapas- Ishak [The People]. It would be laughable if it wasn’t true. My family knows who we are. We did not stop being Indians in the same way Germans never stopped being German, or Irish being Irish, although now they are called, “White.”
“Its easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
The modern DNA tests are just an updated version, I believe, of the same old racial designation game. The same game whereby people with blood ties to this land are tricked and twisted by scientific con men, into relinquishing their ties to the land by changing their identity. That starts in the mind. This, I believe. For those who don't have a position, according to, Sheldon Krimsky, the Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences and an adjunct professor in public health and community medicine at Tufts University, there is a problem. He was interviewed on the topic:
“Tufts Now: How accurate are these tests when it comes to determining ethnicity and genealogy?”
“Sheldon Krimsky: We don’t really know, because the companies selling these services—and there are close to 40 of them—don’t share their data, and their methods are not validated by an independent group of scientists and there are not agreed-upon standards of accuracy. People have sent their DNA to several of these companies and found differences in the results—though not necessarily radical differences. So you have to look at the percentages you receive back with skepticism.”
“Why do the tests return different results?”
“Each company offering these services uses its own proprietary database of DNA samples called ancestry informative markers (AIMs) from current populations in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. From within those databases, they each select for a certain number of alleles—one member of a pair of genes located at a specific position on a specific chromosome—and in these spots, use the genetic variations known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as the basis for evaluating individuals. The markers—SNPs—are chosen because they have different frequencies across different geographical populations.”
“They compare SNPs with those most frequently associated with different populations in their reference database. The results are in no way definitive; instead each company uses common genetic variations as the basis for saying the probability is that 50 percent of your DNA is, for example, from North Europe and 30 percent is from Asia, based on how it compares to the information in its database. However, if you send DNA to a second company, you might get different results, because it has a different database. Studies that have compared ancestry databases have found poorer concordance with Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian descent.”
“What else might make your ancestry results inaccurate?”
“There’s a big chunk of data—actually the majority—that these genetics-testing services don’t use. Your DNA contains millions of SNPs, but these tests are selectively looking at certain genetic variations and use between 100 to 300 AIMs, which account for a small part of the SNPs that differentiate the human family. So even if a test says you are 50 percent European, really it can only report that half of those SNPs of your DNA looks to be European. The results are further skewed by the fact that certain ancestry information markers used by any particular test may come from only your paternal line (Y chromosome) or your maternal line (mitochondrial DNA). Tests using these markers are less accurate. Finally, these testing services use DNA from modern populations in these regions to draw conclusions about people who lived in those areas hundreds or thousands of years ago. It’s a big leap to assume that the particular SNPs used by the tests have remained constant for all that time.”
“Does my family member have any hope of finding out where the African-American side of her family came from?”
“It’s possible to learn something about her past, if she’s lucky. She can perhaps find out what percentage of her genetic markers match favorably with markers seen in different regions of Africa, but only if the AIMs can distinguish different regions. West African AIMs are the most frequently used for inferring African ancestry. And if she were to do ancestry tests with two or three different companies, she might have a pretty good idea if her markers show a high or moderate similarity to those of people currently living in different parts of Africa, if those companies have the appropriate reference populations.”
“She has to understand that she’s not matching her DNA to someone from hundreds of years ago. It’s also quite possible for someone who is African American to get ancestry test results that say they’re 75 percent European. That’s because the chosen ancestry-information markers reflect only a small percentage of our DNA, and there’s actually more genetic diversity within the African population than between the African population and a European population. (For more about this, see dialogue one in a publication I co-wrote, “Using Dialogues to Explore Genetics, Ancestry, and Race” [PDF].)
“What are the privacy issues with these tests?”
“The companies offering these tests largely make their money not from doing the tests, but from selling the genetic information to other companies interested in having access to large genetic databases. Almost 50 percent of the firms that sell you your ancestry information turn around and sell your genetic information to some other company. Often these are pharmaceutical companies trying to understand how variations in certain sections of the human genome may be useful in drug development. (Certain drugs may not function as well in a person carrying certain mutations, so the companies want to find the frequency of these mutations in the population.) Only about 10 percent of the companies that offer ancestry tests destroy your original sample; the vast majority hold onto your sample or sell it. So it’s not just the data, but your actual your saliva, that’s being shopped around.”
“The companies offering testing services often go up for sale, and their privacy policies typically indicate that they bear no responsibility for your privacy once the company is sold—anything you signed is not reliable anymore. Many of the companies have privacy policies that state they can be changed at any time without notifying previous signers. In effect, you need to keep in contact with the company and keep yourself up-to-date on its policy. How many people are going to do that? There’s also a lot of concern that even though your name is not listed on the database, when the data is sold to somebody, the records can be de-anonymized. It has happened before—people have been able to take genetic information with no name on it and, through other databases, find the name associated with that genetic material.”
“A co-worker told me that his sister, who was adopted, learned she had a half-sibling after doing one of these tests, and was really excited to find a new family member. But if I learned I had a half-sibling somewhere, that news would be something of a bombshell.”
“Yes, some of the companies selling these testing services give you the option of learning about people who have similar SNPs to you. You can get a list of people who may appear to be part of your larger family ancestry, and with permission you can contact them or they can contact you. On the surface this sounds innocuous and entertaining, but it certainly can raise questions that people might not be ready for.”
“For example, there are people who don’t know exactly where they came from. You may have thought your grandmother was your mother, because you were raised as sister to your actual mother. Not everyone wants to hear that kind of information. I don’t know that people who sign up with these services fully understand all the possible implications of the results they could receive back.”
Genevieve Rajewski can be reached at genevieve.rajewski@tufts.edu.
https://now.tufts.edu/2018/01/26/pulling-back-curtain-dna-ancestry-tests
“There is increasing demand from the public for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, and the US Food and Drug Administration limits the type of health-related claims DTC tests can market. Some DTC companies provide raw genotyping data to customers if requested, and these raw data may include variants occurring in genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics to be reported as incidental/secondary findings. The purpose of this study was to review the outcome of requests for clinical confirmation of DTC results that were received by our laboratory and to analyze variant classification concordance.”
“Results: Our analyses indicated that 40% of variants in a variety of genes reported in DTC raw data were false positives. In addition, some variants designated with the "increased risk" classification in DTC raw data or by a third-party interpretation service were classified as benign at Ambry Genetics as well as several other clinical laboratories, and are noted to be common variants in publicly available population frequency databases.”
“Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the importance of confirming DTC raw data variants in a clinical laboratory that is well versed in both complex variant detection and classification.”
“False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29565420/
“Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests aim to provide insights into issues as varied as ancestry, nutrition, athletic ability and child talent, and some also report on disease risks. DTC companies tend to present their tests as uniformly beneficial, but the quality of the information they provide can be doubtful. Tests often invite people to step between territories, from the consumer in search of 'fun' information to potential patient, and the boundaries between these roles become even murkier when individuals explore the raw data from their DTC tests using third-party interpretation websites. We discuss two composite cases from U.K. genetics centres where patients used third party interpretation services to analyse raw data from DTC genetic tests. They then presented to NHS clinical services requesting interventions based on the disease-associated variants found, only to find that these variants were not actually present: their 'pathogenic results' were spurious. We highlight the risk of false positives (as well as false negatives) from DTC genetic tests, and discuss whether these cases represent the start of a worrying trend, where publicly funded clinicians and clinical scientists increasingly need to spend time and money investigating genetic results of dubious validity.”
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing with third party interpretation: beware of spurious results
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32915220/
“Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies have proliferated in the past several years. Based on an analysis of genetic material submitted by consumers, these companies offer a wide array of services, ranging from providing information about health and ancestry to identification of surreptitiously-gathered biological material sent in by suspicious spouses. Federal and state laws are ambiguous about the types of disclosures these companies must make about how the genetic information they obtain is collected, used, and shared. In an effort to assist in developing such laws, this Article reports a survey of the privacy policies these companies purport to follow. It canvasses ninety DTC-GT companies operating in the United States and provides a detailed analysis of whether and to what extent those policies inform consumers about how their genetic information will be used and secured, with whom it will be shared, and a host of other issues. Using the Federal Trade Commission’s articulation of the Fair Information Practice Principles and the agency’s proposed Privacy Framework as the baseline, we conclude that most policies fall well short of the ideal.”
“We observed tremendous variability across the DTC-GT industry in the quantity and quality of information provided to consumers concerning the collection, use, and sharing of their genetic data. The majority of companies that we surveyed failed to live up to the basic privacy principles embodied in the four Fair Information Practice Principles (Notice, Choice, Access, and Security) or Privacy Framework (Privacy by Design, Simplified Consumer Choice, and Transparency) endorsed by the FTC. Over a third of companies had no policy documents or chose to rely on policies that were intended to govern access to the website but provided no additional information about the privacy practices that govern their genetic testing or analysis services. With a few exceptions, even policies that governed genetic data provided very little information regarding the collection and sharing of a consumer’s genetic data. These results indicate that a typical consumer is likely not provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding whether to undergo genetic testing with a particular DTC-GT company. In the end, this study suggests that the privacy policies of genetic testing companies are evidence of a larger problem with e-commerce, big data, and the internet of things. Arguably all of these industries might benefit from enhanced consumer privacy protections. The question then becomes one of genetic exceptionalism: whether genetic data should garner more protection than other types of electronic data, such as a consumer’s browsing habits, shopping patterns, or the plethora of location and lifestyle data generated by cell phone apps and fitness wearables. The goal should be achieving the right balance between consumer protection and informed consent so that privacy can be protected without unduly inhibiting the personal and research benefits that come from the free flow of genetic information.”
WHO KNOWS WHAT, AND WHEN?: A SURVEY OF THE PRIVACY POLICIES PROFFERED BY U.S. DIRECT-TOCONSUMER GENETIC TESTING COMPANIES* James W. Hazel** & Christopher Slobogin
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165765
“Industry giants Ancestry.com, 23andMe, MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA market their services online, share test results on websites, and even offer tutorials on how to search for relatives in phone directories, or share results in social media. They often also claim rights to your genetic data and sell access to their databases to big pharmaceutical and medtech companies.”
“In terms of internet health, it’s part of a worrying trend of corporations to acquire personal data about people and act in their own best interests, not yours. OK, so test results can also lead to important discoveries about your personal health, and can also be shared for non-profit biomedical research in the public interest. But before you give in to your curiosity, here are 23 reasons not to reveal your DNA – one for each pair of the chromosomes in a human cell.”
“The results may not be accurate. Some outputs on personal health and nutrition have been discredited by scientists. One company, Orig3n, misidentified a Labrador Retriever dog’s DNA sample as being human in 2018. As Arwa Mahdawi wrote after taking the test, “Nothing I learned was worth the price-tag and privacy risks involved.”
Heritage tests are less precise if you don’t have European roots. DNA is analyzed in comparison to samples already on file. Because more people of European descent have taken tests so far, assessments of where your ancestors lived are usually less detailed outside of Europe.
Your DNA says nothing about your culture. Genetic code can only tell you so much. As Sarah Zhang wrote in 2016, “DNA is not your culture and it certainly isn’t guaranteed to tell you anything about the places, history and cultures that shaped you.”
Racists are weaponizing the results. White nationalists have flocked to commercial DNA companies to vie for the highest race-purity points on extremist websites.
DNA tests can’t be anonymous. You could jump through hoops to attempt to mask your name and location, but your DNA is an unique marker of your identity that could be mishandled no matter what.
You will jeopardize the anonymity of family members. By putting your own DNA in the hands of companies your (known or unknown) relatives could be identifiable to others, possibly against their wishes.
You could become emotionally scarred. You may discover things you weren’t prepared to find out. A fertility watchdog in the United Kingdom called for DNA testing companies to warn consumers of the risks of uncovering traumatic family secrets or disease risks.
Anonymous sperm and egg donors could become a thing of the past. The likelihood that anonymous donations will remain anonymous decreases with every test taken, which could dissuade donors and negatively affect some families.
Millions are spent on targeted ads to lure you. DNA companies hand out free kits at sporting events, and create DNA specific music playlists on Spotify. In 2016 alone, Ancestry.com spent $109 million on ads. An ad by AncestryDNA capitalized on “Brexit” and British identity politics, with the slogan, “The average British person’s data is 60% European. We may be leaving Europe, but Europe will never leave us.”
A pair of socks is a better gift. You may be tempted by special offers around holidays such as this one, offering 30% off genetic tests for Father’s Day: “What do you share with Dad? This Father’s Day, celebrate your DNA connection with Dad”. Perhaps the man who has everything would prefer not to become your science experiment.
You will become the product. Your genetic code is valuable. Once you opt in to sharing, you have no idea what company gets access to it, nor for what purpose.
Big pharma wants your DNA. 23AndMe revealed a $300 million USD deal with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline in 2018 that gives them access to aggregate customer data. Calico Life Sciences, a medtech company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is the primary research partner of Ancestry.com.
Companies can change their privacy policies. You might be asked to give your consent again, but policies of companies can still change in ways you may not like.
A company (and your DNA) can change hands. Companies are bought, sold, go out of business or change their business models. And then what happens with your genetic info?
Destructing your DNA can be difficult. An investigation into how to delete your DNA from Ancestry.com found that it is possible to erase your record and allegedly even destroy your physical sample. But they don’t make it easy.
You have no idea how long they will keep your sample. Some companies say they keep samples for 1-10 years. Regulations governing DNA databases differ from country to country. Do you know the rules where you live?
Police can access your DNA. There’s crime solving potential, but also human rights risks. Authorities can seek court approval to access consumer DNA databases, but investigators have also been known to create fake profiles using a suspect’s DNA.
Your results could become part of a global database. Law enforcement in several countries have unrestricted access to genetic profiles. Some scientists argue that creating a “universal genetic forensic database” would be the only way to make unwanted intrusion less likely through regulation.
Your data could be hacked, leaked or breached. Third party sharing is common practice among companies. The more people have access to your DNA, the more vulnerable it is to being hacked. As companies amass more data, they will become increasingly attractive to criminals and vulnerable to cyber theft.
Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them?
You are signing away rights. When you use services like AncestryDNA the default agreement is to let them transfer your genetic information to others, royalty-free, for product development, personalized product offers, research and more.
Companies profit from your DNA. Testing isn’t the only way companies make money. They profit from data sharing agreements with research institutes and the pharmaceutical industry. If your DNA helps develop a cure for a disease, you’ll never know. And you certainly won’t earn royalties from any related drug sales.
You may be discriminated against in the future. In the United States, health insurers and workplaces are not allowed to discriminate based on DNA. But the law does not apply to life insurance or disability insurance. Who knows in your case, where you live? Some day you could be compelled to share genetic information with your own insurer.
“If you still decide to submit your DNA for testing, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission offers sound advice to consumers: compare privacy policies before you pick a company, choose your account options carefully, recognize the risks, and report any concerns to authorities. To counteract the dominance of commercial companies, you can also contribute your data to non-profit research repositories like All of Us or DNA.Land that are open to public scrutiny.”
“If you regret a choice you made in the past, you could have your DNA data deleted and request that your sample be destroyed. Consumer DNA testing is an example of why strong data protection laws are so important. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)offers some protections, but elsewhere you have few rights when you hand over sensitive data.”
https://internethealthreport.org/2019/23-reasons-not-to-reveal-your-dna/
See more @ https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5688
So, one may choose to do whatever they want to, but just bear in mind that the long con started with my people, American Indians on paper. The evil ones are still working, but now they are using and “finagling” DNA. I mean, they are gonna twist DNA, the same way they twisted paper. The evil ones can’t help themselves.
Think about the emotional damage that is being done to the hearts of people? Think about the level of evil deceit that it takes to play games with the bloodlines of the people. Then think about, “WHY?” Why would someone do that? ESTATES AND HEIRS. False “created” blood claims to the land for one group, and a created “homeland” for the other, indigenous group, somewhere else. They’ve done it in the past. They sent our people, American Indians, to West Africa, Europe, the Caribbean and anywhere they could.
This time though, the evil ones are gonna reverse the game, and try and turn everyone into them, I truly believe, at least on paper and in the phony DNA tests. They want it all. From day one on this land the evil ones wanted it all. They were willing to murder for it. They mostly got it. Now they want the DNA. After DNA, what is there is left to steal? “Souls, you heard?” Oh, they already got a bunch.
Lord have Mercy
DNA Long Con