Deep Thought: Should I get my DNA Tested?

How Safe is Your Information When You Use a DNA Testing Kit?
by Jessa Barron October 22, 2015
“..They can help us discover more about our origins and even help us connect to family members we didn’t know we had. While there are questions about how these tests are completed, one of the more pertinent questions relates to the security of these tests. Many are concerned with who has access to your DNA test once it’s sent back into the lab and what the lab can legally do with your DNA. To help you determine how safe your information is if you use a DNA testing kit, we answer some of the most common questions when it comes to protecting your information and test results…”

Risks of DNA Testing in Search for Ancestors May 30, 20069:00 AM ET

“..I should point out that, when you look at the mitochondria and you look at the Y chromosome, it is only looking at one chapter in the 23 chapters of the DNA history. And DNA is, if you want to think about it in a more practical term, it’s like a tape recorder. And it records all of your ancestral migrations, and it has nothing to do with politics, or race, or religion. It is only recording those events, and half of it comes from your mother and half of it comes from your father. But it’s not always equal.

So, that being said, parents and children do not necessarily always inherit, let’s say the minor components of a genetic ancestry. So you might have three children, and one child would inherit, let’s say, a 15 percent sub-Saharan African content, and the second child will inherit none. And that’s just the DNA shuffle, as we call it. ..

But we also know that this DNA and this racial categorization is used in forensics and in criminology, in ways that your own privacy might be subject to a court order, for example. To find out if any relatives in your family might be involved in some activity. “

Privacy risks lurk in DNA tests, experts warn By Patrick Cain National Online Journalist, News Global News August 15, 2016 8:00 am
“..But others are curious about the complex, highly personal information about you coded in your DNA: drug companies, insurers, sometimes police.

And once you put your cheek swab in the mail, you risk permanently losing control over a complete copy of your genetic data, linked to your real identity.

Should insurers see the secrets locked in your genes?
Liberal MP Rob Oliphant announces bill to prevent genetic discrimination
Internet of Things our ‘biggest threat to privacy,’ expert warns

“I think you have to assume that you’re going to lose control over that information,” warns Ann Cavoukian, a former Ontario privacy commissioner who runs the Privacy and Big Data Institute at Ryerson University…

Closing a 23andMe account doesn’t necessarily mean the company’s copy of your genetic data will disappear:

“We allow customers to close their accounts. It’s a bit complicated by our regulatory compliance for laboratories in the United States, which requires that raw information be held for a minimum of 10 years. The information will be de-identified, but will continue to be stored for that set amount of time.”…”

…Your genetic data can show your odds of getting diseases, like the BRCA1 genetic mutation that can mean a much higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Some diseases, like Huntington’s disease, are genetic, and susceptibility can be read from someone’s genetic information. With the science of genetics in its infancy, it’s impossible to know what can be told about you from your DNA in the future.

“With genetic data, it is very concrete, in terms of a road map to your physical conditions,” Cavoukian says….

“We are very clear that users own and control their data,” spokesperson Patrick Erlich wrote in an e-mail. “They can download it, ask us to delete it and destroy the sample, and can revoke their opt-in consent to participate in research projects at any time.”

“As disclosed in our policies, DNA samples are stored without personally identifying information at either a testing laboratory or other storage facility and may be kept by us unless or until circumstances require us to destroy the sample, or it is no longer suitable for testing purposes. ”

So what should an individual do? Like any other decision about digital privacy, the answer really comes down to your own comfort level, and how you perceive the trade-off between some information now and a potential privacy breach in the future…”
CORRECTION: Hands Over Client DNA Test Results to Cops Witho̶u̶t̶ a Warrant*-
A pretty good way to discourage people from using gene testing services

Ronald Bailey|May. 6, 2015 1:11 pm

-Health Liabilities?

The Risks and Benefits of 23andMe DNA Analysis | Healdove

In the event of corporate bankruptcy, consumers’ genetic data would likely be considered a corporate asset and sold. That is what happened when deCODE, a prior competitor of 23andMe, went bankrupt in 2009. Pharmaceutical giant Amgen purchased the company in December 2012 for $415M, in part for its large data bank.

You may learn about your own health risks or carrier status and by extension the potential risks and carrier status of your relatives…”

Differences Between Companies

Ancestry DNA vs 23andMe: Full Comparison

23andMe, Ancestry and Selling Your DNA Information 23andMe, Posted on December 30, 2015
“..However, opting out of his higher level DOES NOT stop the company from utilizing, sharing or selling your anonymized DNA and data. Anonymized data means your identity and what they consider identifying information has been removed.

Many people think that if you opt-out, your DNA and data is never shared or sold, but according to 23andMe and Ancestry’s own documentation, that’s not true. Opt-out is not truly opt-out. It’s only opting out of them sharing your non-anonymized data – meaning just the higher level of participation only. They still share your anonymized data in aggregated fashion…”
Uprooted: The dangers of DNA testing
Virginia Hughes | October 1, 2013 | MATTER
“Searching your genetic ancestry can certainly be fun: You can trace the migration patterns of 10,000-year-old ancestors, or discover whether a distant relative ruled a continent or rode on the Mayflower. But the technology can just as easily unearth more private acts—infidelities, sperm donations, adoptions—of more recent generations, including previously unknown behaviors of your grandparents, parents, and even spouses. Family secrets have never been so vulnerable…”

Problems with AncestryDNA’s Genetic Ethnicity Prediction? Blaine Bettinger19 June 2012 201 Comments
Different Reference Populations and Algorithms

As I suggested above, different companies use different reference populations and algorithms to create a biogeographical estimate, which can result in varying estimates.

For example, in my previous review of AncestryDNA’s Genetic Ethnicity Prediction, I compared my genetic ethnicity results from three companies (, 23andMe, and FTDNA), and found that their results varied considerably. I’m not surprised by this, but I do expect that over time – as the industry arrives at more standard reference populations and algorithms (which the cheap whole-genome sequencing revolution will enable) – that estimates from different companies will align much more closely. Be patient and enjoy being a pioneer…”

-Results didn’t show?

Ask Ancestry Anne: Where Is My Native American DNA?
“..So how much of your great-great-grandmother’s DNA are you likely to have? Probably around 1.5625%! And that may not be enough to detect Native American ethnicity.

dna percentage2

If you can find older generations on that line to test, I recommend that. Also, get brothers, sisters and cousins tested. You never know who might have enough DNA to be detected.

Even if you find the DNA connection, you will still want to follow the paper trail. I recommend our Native American Research Guide to get you started.

Happy searching!.”

-> Triplets

These Stunning Triplets Took A DNA Test With Unexpected Results!

…As far as genetics goes, all three of the triplets had their result show up as being 99% European. However, it was when that percentage began to be broken down that some real discrepancies began to arise. As the results were revealed on the show, the girls, the audience and even the doctors themselves were more and more shocked at the results. First, it was revealed that Erica had around 16% Irish and British ancestry, however Nicole had 18% Irish and British ancestry. Well, that seems to be fairly minor so far right? It was only going to get crazier as more was revealed! ..l

Different Ancestry?

The rest of the results continued to deviate from what was expected. The 23andMe test showed that while all three girls had French and German heritage, each triplet had a different percentage. Nicole had 11% French and German, Jaclyn had 18% and Erica had 22.3%. Twenty-two to eleven percent seems like a pretty drastic difference for triplets with identical DNA. For their Doctors segment, each time a new percentage was revealed it would flash on the screen and the audience would react in absolute amazement. The girls themselves were also clearly very confused about how their differing results could happen.

The final ethnicity to be revealed was the girls’ Scandinavian heritage. And for this one, yet another shocker was revealed. Two of the girls, Erica and Jaclyn both had the exact same results with the same percentage of Scandinavian ancestry at 7.4%. However, Nicole had a totally different and higher percentage at 11.4% Scandinavian. The Doctors, the Inside Edition reporter, and the Dahm triplets themselves were totally shocked at the amazing results. It turns out, these amazing ancestry DNA results might reveal even more about DNA science than previously known…
Dr. Travis Stork said, “I think the answer here is that we’ve come so far in terms of genetic testing, but you can’t just spit in a cup and have every single answer that you are looking for.” On Inside Edition, another set of triplets had similar results with another DNA kit. Only one set of triplets had results that were extremely close which was a test done with Ancestry DNA. Perhaps one day, at-home testing for ancestry will become even more streamlined and accurate. However, in the meantime it’s definitely interesting to get a peek inside where your ancestors may have descended from many years ago!

The at-home tests seem to be imperfect as far as percentages go, however they do undoubtedly offer insight into one’s background and ethnic makeup. Lisa mentioned on the show that while she was very interested in pursuing her own ethnic background, she might not go the route of the at-home DNA test. Instead, she said she would probably have a personalized test run by a doctor or genetic scientist. This kind of testing is definitely on the more expensive side, but are probably far more accurate. However, if you’re on a limited budget but still want to know more, an at-home test certainly won’t do you any harm! …

Family Roots
Elie Dolgin
January 18, 2011 Kurt Hoffman
DNA tests to uncover Jewish origins have been offered for decades by companies such as Houston-based Family Tree DNA and DNA Tribes of Arlington, Va. They have shown, for example, that many Hispanic Americans likely descended from Jews who were forced to convert or hide their religion more than 500 years ago in Spain and Portugal. Yet although standard ancestry-testing platforms can point to centuries-old Jewish origins, none would have flagged Pickrell’s relatively recent Semitic pedigree.

That’s because most DNA tests have traditionally relied on only two small parts of the genome: the Y-chromosome, which is passed down almost unchanged from father to son, and mitochondria, which mothers pass faithfully to their offspring. Because these stretches of DNA remain relatively consistent from one generation to the next, they are particularly useful for testing direct-line paternal and maternal ancestry, respectively; however, they essentially ignore the bulk of someone’s DNA ancestry and cannot detect genetic signatures that cross gender lines…

CeCe Moore, a 41-year-old amateur genealogist who runs a television production company in Orange County, Calif., is one such customer. In 2008, Moore tested her mitochondrial DNA and her father’s Y chromosome, but found no traces of Jewish heritage. Then, last year, she obtained her DNA readout from 23andMe and learned that a small but significant amount of her genome appeared to be of Ashkenazi origin…”

momondo – The DNA Journey

“Published on Sep 30, 2010

Ola tells CNN’s World’s Untold Stories about her experience when she found out her Neo-Nazi husband was also Jewish.”


CNN: Neo-Nazi Skinhead finds out he is Jewish

Ever got your DNA tested? Why or why not? What did you find out? Any other comments, suggestions, feedback, questions, etc… regarding the content above or not mentioned that you suggest me sharing here?

Good News Multiculturalism


Creation and Evolution: What is the debate about?

I majored in the Liberal Arts for the Human Services, so I’m not very informative of the Sciences. However, I can just say this whole “debate” on Creation and Evolution is just a bunch of “misunderstanding” of one another on various “issues” within this topic. I’ll just share my own perspective that I feel this Evolution theory of “survival of the fittest” bring on prejudice, like racism-see personal story, classism, etc…

Answering Racism With The Bible


Facebook Wall Posts on Wednesday, February 23rd 2011

Expelled Movie Trailer – Today’s Christian Videos

Grant B this is a great movie. We have shown it on campus a few times as well.

Remi P. wrote Wed, February 23, 2011 8:58:33 AM on your link: “This is the worst “documentary” I have ever seen. They used extremists for the anti-religion people (such as the prof from UMM who is a total douche). Also, most of the points are not proven. He says everything is against us, Darwinists are everywhere and he never proves it and says stuff that’s it. He only creates a climate of fear. He also makes really horrible shortcuts between Darwinists and nazis; those two concepts have nothing to do with each others. The Nazis were supported in part by creationists (i.e. Catholics) but he does not talk about that. This is only a propaganda documentary to feed in more Fox News ideas. I really hope someone will, one day, make a documentary on the same topic as Expelled, but without trying to pull people apart but rather describing in an objective way the situation as well as solutions to those problems.”


Yes, he was not only supported by the Catholic Pope (not all of his followers of Catholicism-as my parents were so at the time in the Philippines during WWII; This is just one example how we got to be careful to not categorize groups of people. Just as NOT all Germans were behind Hitler. Ever seen the movie “Valkyrie -2008?-), but by many other groups (e.g. American scientists, some Arab Muslim nation heads, etc..). The swatzika symbol might’ve came out of Hinduism.

Remi P Wed, February 23, 2011 9:06:29 AM wrote: “I have seen another film that is pretty much as bad as this one which is Religulous. It is pretty much saying that religion is ridiculous with the same methods as Expelled. It is terrible. There is no objectivity or middle ground in the American society nowadays.”

Sal Monteagudo

Grant: I was sharing this to help promote the up-coming guest speaker coming this Sunday-Monday…

Remi: I’ve done a lot of research on this topic that’s linked below that video an…d still learning. We all don’t know the answers, but as long as we RESPECT one another’s opionions (based on each indviduals experience and background, which we are all created unique and different) . Seek and you’ll find!!


Remi: Yeah…lol!! I actually have seen that film by Bill Mahr, which a friend of mine didn’t enjoy watching it with me too. i actually liked it as I watched it with an open-mind “trying” to understand a guy (raised with parents having 2 different religions) “trying” to search for “answers”. He (like anyone doing one’s own film) was very biased, but show’s again how we all come from different experiences and backgrounds.

Khayam R. commented on your link Wed, February 23, 2011 11:04:42 AM wrote: “sal, this is a really awful movie. ben stein just attacks the theories behind evolution while never showing us the evidence behind creative design besides the testimony of scientists who aren’t very well respected in their fields. in addition, claiming that galileo’s times were easier for free thinkers is anything but the truth. galileo was charged with heresy and imprisoned for preaching a heliocentric solar system. he was eventually forced to recant what he found from his research. none of the scientists in the movie that proposed intelligent design were subject to that sort of persecution; they were simply frowned upon by their colleagues.”


Ben was just focusing on how the education system in America is just one-sided (e.g. not open to Creation) and he doesn’t have any “professional” background on the subject on hand. He is Jewish and was just defending his faith’s beliefs on “Creation” against attacks of secular schools. Here is a blog I found “somewhat” relating to what you just shared about=> More on Ben Stein and Expelled

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:10:22 AM: Hi Sal, “is evidence the only path to truth?”

Define truth? A “good of friend” of mine said this..”What’s 1 + 1?”..2, right? How do we know this? Is it “obvious”? It may be for some people, but not for others. Sorry, it’s 11:30pm right now as I’m responding to this, my brain is kind of “slow” now. I’ll get back to your on this “deep question”!! I can only think of this response if you are referring to this Truth…

Can you see the wind?

“I’ve seen the effects of the wind, but I’ve never seen the wind. There’s a mystery to it.” -Billy Graham (see faith)

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:11:50 AM wrote: “andrew, typically, yes.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 11:14:23 AM commented on your link wrote: “but that assertion is true without evidence. Is there a problem with using evidence for evidence’s truth? Sometimes, for the case of accepting evidence as a means to truth, we have to accept things on faith without evidence. Like accepting evidence on faith.”

Sal<br>! I didn’t believe there is “a” Creator because of “material” evidence, I believed through my Catholic faith growing-up as a kid.

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:17:49 AM wrote: “andrew, faith is enough to form a hypothesis, but you need evidence to prove the hypothesis.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 11:21:02 AM  commented on your link.: wrote: “won’t the evidence be the same for confirming and disconfirming Christian theories?”

Sal [Thu, Feb. 24th 11′]: Again, I’m not a “science-guy”, but faith isn’t proven through theories or evidence.  As a popular saying from the Bible..

“Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.”-Hebrews 11

I got into my “faith” through a personal encounter in need of a Savior during a “difficult-time” growing-up (during my early college years-see story). Each individual encounters their faith differently. Just like how people need to lose weight by trying out a “new” diet program and results vary with each individual. Well, my faith has been “proven” (sometimes I have my ups and downs each day) through answered prayers, knowing what I’m grateful/thankful each day (I’m reminded of this almost at my workplace working with mentally-physically challenged adults (Andrew, I’m sure you can relate as you worked at the same group home) ! However, if you really want to get “scientific”, check out Biblical Archaeology!

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:21:34 AM wrote: “andrew, i’m not sure what you mean by that. could you provide an example???”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:24:55 AM wrote: “I can’t think of any”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:26:50 AM wrote: “I’d probably have to stipulate at this point, the point made about proof. We can question what that means. What do we speak of when we mean proof?”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:32:22 AM commented on your link. wrote: “it’s okay andrew, let’s not evaluate a religious theory anyways. it’s bound to offend someone. i don’t think people are wrong for having faith; i just think you should have more than just your faith before you declare something to be the truth. keep in mind that we have countless religions in the world who are 100% certain that they know the truth, yet they all disagree on the ultimate path to salvation. this tells me that most of them are wrong.”

Sal: After I came into my Christian faith my first year in college, I still had lots of questions (e.g. where races came from, all religions lead to one God?, etc..). I still do and I share my current “seeking” (research) via my websites (e.g., World Religions, etc... My personal challenge is to call on God and ask ..” are You real?…why?..”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:39:35 AM wrote: “I think there has been a tremendous push from the enlightenment to seek evidence, which some things cannot be proven by evidence but we accept them on faith anyhow, as I’ve mentioned about accepting evidence as a good means of acquiring truth. Ultimately, I dont’ think finding proof through evidence leaves us with uncontroversiality. Maybe, our understanding of truth is very off base also… I’m no means a nihilist about truth, but I love thinking about it.”

Sal: It’s in our human nature to “seek truth” as curious human beings…“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”Matthew 7:7. There is a story in the Torah or “Old Testament” (Bible) during the beginning of Creation

Khayam R commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:39:46 AM wrote: “andrew, since both creative design and evolution are supposed to be scientific, i would like to judge both theories based on the scientific method: 1. propose a question, 2. do some research, 3. form a hypothesis, 4. test the hypothesis, 5. determine if the hypothesis is true of false from the results of your experiment, 6. report your results if the hypothesis is true or start over from step 3 if the hypothesis is false.”

Khayam R commented on your link Wed, February 23, 2011 11:41:09 AM wrote: “andrew, i don’t you could base everything on evidence. sometimes faith and intuition help, but the majority of your findings should be based on objective evidence. otherwise, how do you stay grounded on what’s factual and what you believe???”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:43:03 AM wrote: “maybe I’m willing to give up that tie between fact and belief or at least value it less. Maybe this is attributed to my skepticism about objective reality…lol”

Sal [Sunday, February 27th 2011] : Again, I’m not into scientific reasoning. I was trying to find a video that speaks the “scientific language” and found this one (??? shrugging my shoulder with uncertainty)…


What do you think? A friend of mine told me God is not in the same “time” as we are currently presently living at. He’s the Alpha & Omega (Beginning and End-Revelations 22:13) and the “same yesterday, today, and forever” [Hebrew 13:8]. We gotta think outside of the box, but we can’t think the way He does because He’s God!!

Remi P Wed, February 23, 2011 11:43:52 AM commented on your link. wrote: “Sal: I am not sure my message got across the way I meant it to be. I am not denying the fact that some researchers are mocked and humiliated by peers when they try to work on a field that rely on religion and science. What I am saying is that this documentary is nothing but propaganda as well mind manipulation. The last part of my first comment means that I wish for someone to treat this subject in an intellectual/social way. This subject has to be treated with the eye of journalism and true investigation on the cause and consequences of this problem. Expelled only works on attacking claims against science portraying it as an anti-religious society. This, in fact, is not true. The claims are not supported by arguments in the film, or often, only certain claims are but not the ones that send a hateful message. I am far from being an anti-religious person and I am a scientific.”

Sal [Sunday, February 27th 2011] I understand Remi..I was trying to reply to your two comments in a quick short of time as I wanted to share my “reply” as soon as I can before there were going to be more comments. I wished FB could have a reply thread (like You tube) to each comment, which one isn’t able to reply back until the the end of all the comments like what happened last week (30 comments by the time I got home). Thus, I had to make this blog for easier response and viewing. I’m actually anti-religious (man made beliefs) as Jesus was…long story that I can share on another blog or you can see one of the links on this topic [see, World Religions, etc..].

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:58:59 AM commented on your link: Hi Sal, rote: “andrew, i guess i have a more simplistic view. i need something to be detected with either my 5 senses or some sense of logic for me to believe in something. although i could see the logical argument for why there is a creator, i could also see the argument why there isn’t. from my perspective, there isn’t enough evidence for me to say for certain whether or not a creator exists, nor do i see any possible way of proving it to anyone.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 12:11:26 PM commented on your link. Hi Sal, “but the need for detection of sense and logic is founded ONLY on belief. that is where I think those who endorse the scientific method and those who don’t are equal…”

Sal: God gave us “free will”, which we can choose to “believe” or “not to believe” the “evidence” around us. He’s not going to “make us” believe Him!

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:13:34 PM wrote: “which foundation is better? I guess we’ve conceded this. But we must admit that they are equal in that respect; requiring evidence and not. both are mere beliefs; nothing more. what everyone I believe is arguing all the time is that one is better than another. But it isn’t because of evidence I don’t think.”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 12:13:57 PM commented on your link. wrote: “andrew, without your senses and logic, how could you perceive anything???”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 12:16:02 PM commented on your link. wrote: “Do you think that you could prove that evidence is a good means to get to truth?”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 12:16:34 PM commented on your link. wrote: “andrew, i don’t think it’s really about which is better. i think in order to find evidence, you do need some sense of intuition. after that, the evidence should put itself together. it’s a lot like a jig saw puzzle. take some guesses, repeat trial and error, but by the end, the pieces should clue you in on where the next piece goes.”

Sal: One needs to know what they are specifically looking for when “searching” for “evidence”. Do you know what you are looking for?

“But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.”-Deuteronomy 4

Khayam R commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:18:26 PM wrote: “andrew, i guess that would depend on what we’re talking about. i don’t think i could ever find evidence for a creator because i wouldn’t even know where to begin.”

Sal: I would suggest the “beginning” (take a look at the Book of Genesis in the Bible (need “proof” on this “Historical document”?-see prophecies, archaeology-Dead Sea Scrolls, stories of people that has been impacted, etc…)

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:22:37 PM wrote: “I’m just criticizing the scientific method I guess. Endorsing it cannot be proven through the scientific method if we’re truly to uphold logic. Its importance must be taken on faith. That being said, what truly separates other matters of faith and the scientific method might not be what we think. But ultimately, I think we’ve agreed that faith is important and some things need to be accepted on BLIND faith (like logic and science). But from the sounds of it, Ben Stein was strawmanning people left and right and saying that religion was contrary to science. I guess I was just trying to bring things back down to equal respects in terms of accepting on faith or not.”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 12:34:40 PM commented on your link. wrote: “andrew, i don’t see the need for criticizing the scientific method. it allows you to use your faith and intuition when proposing a question, doing the research, and forming a hypothesis. i guess the thing that makes me skeptical of intelligent design is that it only works up to the 3rd step of the scientific method. that’s fine if we’re talking about religion, but the problem is they are trying to say it’s a science.”

Sal: To all the responses, I was trying to find a “better” video than “The Expelled” to “prove” creation and not sure if I could find one except this..

Ultimate Proof of Creation Pt 1 of 6

more is being updated as I’m “trying” reply to each question-comment…