It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


For example, health insurance companies can use the results to deny coverage to someone who may have a genetic marker for any of a huge number of chronic and/or deadly diseases.

So.

Insurance companies, acting as researchers, obtain a whole lot of anonymous postfetal blood samples in order to look for genetic diseases.

They find something in one of those anonymous samples which looks bad. So they do an entire sequence on that anonymous sample.

They then take that genome genome to online companies to which people upload their genome and look for matches so that they can find out who that postfetal blood sample belongs to. So they can have an excuse to not insure them.

That makes sense.

Kind of expensive though. Probably not likely to be cost effective.
edit on 5/15/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2018 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro




You would be sick to your stomach if you knew the extent to which that DNA information has been "utiliized."

Please elucidate us. I have a bucket handy.



Ever see the Fictional Film The Island ? Well ,it was Not Fiction............



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: NorthernLites

More important who owns it.

I have stood in ques in checkouts and asked mothers with babies and toddlers if they own their childs DNA and they look at me like I'm some kind of nutcase.



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 05:31 AM
link   
A few weeks ago ,My friend was just telling me about this ...she did billing in hospitals in California ...she was asking around why they were billing for DNA samples and where they went . ... No one knew the answers . ...I'm guessing because it's been going on so long that it's just accepted now ? .... It's so
Sketchy .



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
link
Akransas stores dna for two years...and at the very bottom it says you can say no.
I was never told this. I didn't get any information.
Take the blood sample and then pump your newborn full of shots. Nope.
I hate that state.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Phage
A clone army of Californians! That's the plan!

*shudder*

Ha Ha!

We know the "real deal". They are looking for the "special people". You remember, the Indigo Children!



Also don't forget about the elites. What if a billionaire should need a heart or a liver etc, etc. Would be much to scan those databases for a John Doe who matches up nicely. A week or two later and they have the transplant organ they needed and John Doe is nowhere to be found. Or in a motel room bathtub somewhere packed in ice and a note saying to call 911.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter


For example, health insurance companies can use the results to deny coverage to someone who may have a genetic marker for any of a huge number of chronic and/or deadly diseases.

So.

Insurance companies, acting as researchers, obtain a whole lot of anonymous postfetal blood samples in order to look for genetic diseases.

They find something in one of those anonymous samples which looks bad. So they do an entire sequence on that anonymous sample.

They then take that genome genome to online companies to which people upload their genome and look for matches so that they can find out who that postfetal blood sample belongs to. So they can have an excuse to not insure them.

That makes sense.

Kind of expensive though. Probably not likely to be cost effective.


That's probably true although I have no idea of the costs involved.

What does it cost to have DNA sequenced? Does anyone know?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Thank 'God and the Calvary I came in on' I'm not a Yank!


I have cousins there so don't nail me just yet.
edit on 17-5-2018 by BotheLumberJack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter


For example, health insurance companies can use the results to deny coverage to someone who may have a genetic marker for any of a huge number of chronic and/or deadly diseases.

So.

Insurance companies, acting as researchers, obtain a whole lot of anonymous postfetal blood samples in order to look for genetic diseases.

They find something in one of those anonymous samples which looks bad. So they do an entire sequence on that anonymous sample.

They then take that genome genome to online companies to which people upload their genome and look for matches so that they can find out who that postfetal blood sample belongs to. So they can have an excuse to not insure them.

That makes sense.

Kind of expensive though. Probably not likely to be cost effective.


That's probably true although I have no idea of the costs involved.

What does it cost to have DNA sequenced? Does anyone know?

From a 2016 article on Genome.gov:

Based on the data collected from NHGRI-funded genome-sequencing groups, the cost to generate a high-quality 'draft' whole human genome sequence in mid-2015 was just above $4,000; by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. The cost to generate a whole-exome sequence was generally below $1,000. Commercial prices for whole-genome and whole-exome sequences have often (but not always) been slightly below these numbers.

The Cost of Sequencing a Human Genome

The price is probably the same or a touch lower now.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Given that humans are social creatures, it's kind of interesting to know what and just how far out our rights to our own existence extend. We own our intellectual property. We own our images. We own our bodies (mostly). Our identities. But what about our thoughts and knowledge? What about our preferences as determined by Internet clicks? Who owns those things?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NorthernLites

Wait so they can clone Jenna Jameson?

Don't tell me you don't think that's crossed some genetic lab clerk's mind...



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter


For example, health insurance companies can use the results to deny coverage to someone who may have a genetic marker for any of a huge number of chronic and/or deadly diseases.

So.

Insurance companies, acting as researchers, obtain a whole lot of anonymous postfetal blood samples in order to look for genetic diseases.

They find something in one of those anonymous samples which looks bad. So they do an entire sequence on that anonymous sample.

They then take that genome genome to online companies to which people upload their genome and look for matches so that they can find out who that postfetal blood sample belongs to. So they can have an excuse to not insure them.

That makes sense.

Kind of expensive though. Probably not likely to be cost effective.


That's probably true although I have no idea of the costs involved.

What does it cost to have DNA sequenced? Does anyone know?

From a 2016 article on Genome.gov:

Based on the data collected from NHGRI-funded genome-sequencing groups, the cost to generate a high-quality 'draft' whole human genome sequence in mid-2015 was just above $4,000; by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. The cost to generate a whole-exome sequence was generally below $1,000. Commercial prices for whole-genome and whole-exome sequences have often (but not always) been slightly below these numbers.

The Cost of Sequencing a Human Genome

The price is probably the same or a touch lower now.


Thanks so much mon ami!

I had a feeling it might be in the $2-$3K range but am not really surprised it's less than $1000 per now.

Like most everything else technology related, the costs drop significantly over time.

So, it's definitely do-able for people to pay a shady researcher a few hundred bucks for a sample, use the free service of a place like genMD to identify it, and then pay to get it sequenced if the targeted sample is of interest to them.

In a case like this, I don't like to be right...it just makes things scarier.

Well, there we have it Phage...


edit on 5/18/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


Well, there we have it Phage...

We have what? Exactly?


How many thousands of genomes to find one that is questionable and then maybe to find whose it is?

edit on 5/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter


Well, there we have it Phage...

We have what? Exactly?


How many thousands of genomes to find one that is questionable and then maybe to find whose it is?


From your previous post on this topic:




Insurance companies, acting as researchers, obtain a whole lot of anonymous postfetal blood samples in order to look for genetic diseases.

They find something in one of those anonymous samples which looks bad. So they do an entire sequence on that anonymous sample.

They then take that genome genome to online companies to which people upload their genome and look for matches so that they can find out who that postfetal blood sample belongs to. So they can have an excuse to not insure them.

That makes sense. Kind of expensive though. Probably not likely to be cost effective.


And that was just one example of a potential shady/dangerous outcome. There are so many others...

Or do you not agree with that?


edit on 5/18/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

I don't agree. I was being sarcastic.

The point was that it makes no practical sense for an insurance company to engage in such an effort. The expense of sequencing thousands of anonymous genomes would not be cost effective to find a few with genetic diseases. Assuming that they could eventually identify the individual at all.

edit on 5/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

I don't agree. I was being sarcastic.

The point was that it makes no practical sense for an insurance company to engage in such an effort. The expense of sequencing thousands of anonymous genomes would not be cost effective to find a few with genetic diseases. Assuming that they could eventually identify the individual at all.


I agree with that Phage - currently.

But what makes no practical sense today economically is a no-brainer economically tomorrow as additional breakthroughs in the field continually drive costs down further and further.

We've seen that model play out time and time again.

And DNA research science actually has more researchers than most working on discoveries and improvement in techniques to satisfy the demands of the various constituencies that utilize it and for the sheer excitement experienced by the researchers due to the enormous potential applications of being able to understand and effectively manipulate or change it to produce a desired result.

We'll have to see how this one plays out but I have a feeling we won't have to wait too long for the cost/benefit ratio to cross the threshold of profitability for the insurance companies - and others.

edit on 5/25/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Mine's for sale!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join