Healthy Person's Genome Analyzed to Predict Risk for Diseases, Responses to Treatments

[The Straight Story]

Healthy Person's Genome Analyzed to Predict Risk for Diseases, Responses to Treatments

ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2010) — For the first time, researchers have used a healthy person's complete genome sequence to predict his risk for dozens of diseases and how he will respond to several common medications. The risk analysis, from the Stanford University School of Medicine, also incorporates more-traditional information such as a patient's age and gender and other clinical measurements. The resulting, easy-to-use, cumulative risk report will likely catapult the use of such data out of the lab and into the waiting room of average physicians within the next decade, say the scientists.

"The $1,000 genome is coming fast," said cardiologist Euan Ashley, MD, assistant professor of medicine, referring to the cost of sequencing all of an individual's DNA. "The challenge lies in knowing what to do with all that information. We've focused on establishing priorities that will be most helpful when a patient and a physician are sitting together looking at the computer screen."

Priorities that include whether a certain medication is likely to work for that particular patient, or if it's likely to have adverse side effects. Priorities that include ascertaining how a patient's obesity or smoking combine with his or her inherent genetic risk for -- or protection against -- heart attack or diabetes. In short, priorities that result in concrete clinical recommendations for patients based on a degree of data that has never existed before.

"We're at the dawn of a new age in genomics," said Stephen Quake, who is the Lee Otterson Professor of Bioengineering. "Information like this will enable doctors to deliver personalized health care like never before. Patients at risk for certain diseases will be able to receive closer monitoring and more frequent testing, while those who are at lower risk will be spared unnecessary tests. This will have important economic benefits as well, because it improves the efficiency of medicine."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100429204658.htm

[truedelphi]

1. What will really happen when this all washes out?

So what if this genome sequencing shows that an average person simply cannot handle being assaulted by Febreeze, Glade, Lysol spray etc?

And even if you never use this stuff, you may be amazed how much of it has been sprayed at night over your cubicle by the cleaning crew.

Will they then get rid of these very "beneficial" and profitable items?

Or will those providers of the genome survey conveniently hide that fact from the person purchasing such a readout of their health indicators? it will be worth VERY BIG BUCKS to do so - these products not only contain benzene, touloene, formaldehyde and other nasties, they are a convenient way for firms like Proctor and Gamble to sell us these very items that should be going off to a Super Fund.

What about GMO foods? Should the genome readouts prove that the absorption of various materials rising exponentially in our grains now that GMO food crops are rising exponentially -should the readouts prove that these new Frankenfoods are not good for us, then what? Will anyone in government or business take on Monsanto? The new Democratic Regime in Washington has not done so - in fact through Obama appointments, Monsanto Clones sit in positions at FDA and EPA and elsewhere including the head of Dept of Agriculture.

("Vomitoxin" a fungus material, is increasing inside the grain matter we purchase -and it will do so as long as GMO is on the planet. It is now estimated that at least 45% of the "organic" long grain rice sold in the USA is GMO. And the situation with wheat is equally bad. My household lives on millet.)


And even if someone out there would object to Monsanto, the pollen from these seeds is ubiquitous.

You can not legislatively put pollen back in the bottle.

So then we may have a situation wherein every single citizen in this nation could sue Monsanto for problems as minor as acid reflux to major cancers and heart conditions.

I suspect that the readouts will conveniently avoid letting us know the truth. At any point where the truth would hurt a Big Industry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Welll, let's see...

"So what if this genome sequencing shows that an average person simply cannot handle being assaulted by Febreeze, Glade, Lysol spray etc?"

I guess that means it will cause a real conundrum, given that average people having been handling household cleaners for many, many years now with nary a problem.

Sort of like if they use DNA to figure out that 2 + 2 actually equals banana.

I'm not sure how they'd usescreening of DNA for genetic illnesses to figure out new forms of math, or to test toxicity in safe consumer products, but it's not my hypothesis.

"Should the genome readouts prove that the absorption of various materials rising exponentially in our grains now that GMO food crops are rising exponentially -should the readouts prove that these new Frankenfoods are not good for us, then what?"

If the "genome readouts" "prove" that GMOs are perfectly safe, will the woo woos shut up and apologize?

My magic 8 ball says no.

"So then we may have a situation wherein every single citizen in this nation could sue Monsanto for problems as minor as acid reflux to major cancers and heart conditions."

Maybe if DNA then I'll win the lotto and move to Caribbean Island.

[truedelphi]

3. As far as cleaning products not hurting people --

You should talk to speech therapists who have to teach youngsters how to talk after they have burned out their throats when they drink mom's cleaning product.

You might also speak with doctors at skin clinics whose first question to people suffering from vitaligo will often be: "Were you ever a housecleaner, a janitor, or a scrupulous house wife (or husband) who used a lot of household cleaners?"

Copper cleaners are suspected of causing cancer. "Simple Green" contains ether -and people who have sprayed it in the air vents in their homes have ended up at the Hospital ER after or during convulsions from that product.

And on and on.

So that one beginning statement of yours is so false that I could literally spend the rest of the day offering you examples of how wrong it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Drinking cleaning products is not a good idea, no.

Children should also no sit on lit gas burners, nor try to stop a spinning lawn mower blade with their bare hands.

That really doesn't have anything to do with anything though, now does it?

There is not a genetic basis for not sticking one's hand under the lawn mower.

[SoCalDem]

5. and to help insurance companies figure out what to exclude in coverage for him/her

and just when to raise the rates astronomically..

[truedelphi]

6. I am liking your animated gif

But where did they find such clean water to use in this shot?

Must not be the Gulf of Mexico!