Chatter

By Naturalcurl

March 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

I have opted not to have genetic testing done for several reasons. 1)It’s extremely expensive. 2)Although it’s not legal to discriminate based on genetic testing now, I don’t know that this will always be the case. 3)I already know that cancer runs in my family, so I don’t need a test to tell me that. I eat healthy, I exercise and see my doctor annually and I’ll stay ahead of problems before they get serious. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By ron

March 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

One bad feature of genetic testing:insurance companies.If you have genetic testing done,they will find out the results.

I will not have genetic testing done.

Someday in the future,genetic testing will probably become mandatory.

By Kevin

March 24, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

I believe the insurance companies already have our genetic profile. Have you ever given a cotton mouth swab before a policy is issued? Also there is the MIB-Medical Information Bureau . Your Doctor reports to them about your health problems and that information is given to the insurance companies.

By Kevin

March 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

Have you ever given an insurance co. a cotton mouth swab before a policy will be issued? All your DNA and genetic info can be gotten from that swab. Also your doctor reports your health to the MIB-Medical Information Bureau and they sell the info to the insurance companies. So “Big Brother” as been watching you for sometime now without your knowledge.

By it's me!

March 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

Your doctor doesn’t report your health info to the MIB they get the info from life ins or health ins companies when you apply for a policy. That is why when you are turned down for whatever reason & you go to another company & try & lie you get caught.

By CP

March 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

I had limited genetic testing done when I was pregnant with my 3rd child. The results let me know I was a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis (being a carrier was more common than I had thought.) The kids’ dad was tested & found to not be a carrier so it wouldn’t be a big deal except to let my children know they could be a carrier for this around the time they want to have kids.

I think there are pros & cons, as there is with everything, with genetic testing. If we could all be guaranteed that we would not be discriminated against for anything found, or not found, by any insurance company, that would be a good step. With the way the world really works though, I doubt that would happen.

By kjlhlkj

March 25, 2008 5:40 AM | Link to this

You better have your house in order before submitting to any testing that could have adverse consequences. You may very well find yourself unable to ever purchase health insurance, life insurance, long term care insurance or get some jobs. The same advice goes for the CDC’s plan to have everyone tested routinely for HIV. Where is the pre-test counseling to discuss the ramifications of bad reaults? Who is going to control the access to the database? I’m sure the police would like access to a DNA database of every person in the country. There is already a database that contains the prescription records for everyone and this is accessable for law enforcement purposes. For me the answer is NO. We are a long way from having the issues worked out on this and the more information I can keep out of databases the better.

By concerned

March 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

never.

By DJA

March 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

I would only do it if I had guaranteed confidentiality from the doctor. You never know if your society will become fanatical about evolution and Darwin and ban anyone with genes facilitating depression or autism from reproducing in the name of “helping children”.

By Scurvy Sally

March 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Only if I was planning to breed & luckily, I’m too intelligent for that. For those who DO plan to preocreate, it would behoove them to opt for adopting if their genes do, indeed, facilitate anything that would impact the quality of life for children.

By Barbara P

March 25, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

I had genetic testing AND counseling right before my Mom died of breast cancer. My grandmother and aunt also died of cancer (very young) and my other aunt has breast cancer as well.

Testing positive for a BRCA1 mutation (as I did) can mean an up to 85% lifetime risk of getting breast cancer. That is HUGE. As my doctor said - it’s not a matter of if - it’s when.

Hereditary cancers sadly don’t respond to the environmental changes - like eating healthy, etc. that other cancers might.

I’d urge anyone intersted in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer - if/when to test, risk reduction and surveillance, AND insurance issues (there are fewer than many people think) to please visit FORCE (www.facingourrisk.org).

By Ann

March 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Why burry your head in the sand? Factors like eating healthy and what not, is not going to lower your risk. The only thing that has been proven to lower your risk is green tea. If you are tested and it is positive, there is not an option of whether you are going to get it or not, it is just a matter of when. The test is simply being one step a head of the game.

By Winfield J. Abbe

March 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Link to this

The premises of this article are completely false and no references are provided. This is more nonsense from the medical orthodoxy of the U.S. Everyone should read the recent book: “The Hidden Story of Cancer” by Brian Peskin, E.E. and Amid Habib, M.D., Pinnacle Press, Houston, 2006-2007. This book has a whole chapter demolishing the myth that cancer is genetically caused. A genius level scientist, Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D. (1883-1970) in Germany, proved, with experiments and facts that cancer is caused by the wrong energy supply, not gene mutations. All normal cells operate and receive their energy to operate with oxygen. All cancer cells operate with a much more inefficient process called fermentation just like the lowest forms of life. Dr. Warburg proved this frist for animals and published the results in about 1923. The transformation occurs quite rapidly for animals. For humans the transformation to the cancerous state takes much longer, decades, and is much more difficult to prove. But he did prove this and his results have been verified by others around the world. Unfortunately the prejudiced cancer generals in Washington have either not read his 500+ scientific papers on all subjects or not understood what he did because they are not as good scientists as he was. He was much better than any of them. Also, they don’t want to admit they are wrong because they have been falsely claiming cancer is genetically caused for decades. But the War on Cancer is a total failure because notwithstandint the millions of dollars squandered by the cancer generals, still, about one person dies every minute either from cancer, treatment or both. All orthodox cancer treatments are life threatening. The late professor Hardin Jones, professor of physiology and medical physics at the University of CAlifornia, Berkeley, proved that orthodox cancer treatments are a total failure. In fact, he proved, using the correct statistics, not the false ones of the medical orthodoxy, that untreated cancer patients live actually up to 4 times longer than treated ones. The orthodox cancer treatment is the biggest scam in the world today. See the article “The Truth About Hydrazine Sulfate-Dr. Gold Speaks” 2005, by Joseph Gold, M.D., at www.hydrazinesulfate.org. This article is basically a criminal indictment of the National Cancer Institute. The cancer generals are guilty of medical quackery, fraud, scientific misconduct and crimes against humanity. No patient should make any decisions about cancer on meaningless genetic testing period. This is scientific nonsense just like the failed War on CAncer. If they were correct, cancer would have been solved by now with all the billions of dollars squandered. It is not solved because they are wrong period. Dr. Warburg was correct but they have negligently ignored him and his experiments and facts about cancer. Cancer is a disease of respiratory impairment or the wrong energy supply. It is not caused by gene mutations and they have not proved it has been caused by gene mutations. In fact, the gene mutations observed in tumor tissue are also likely caused by the wrong energy. The cancer generals evidently have cause and effect all mixed up. Winfield J. Abbe A.B., Physics, UC Berkeley, 1961 Ph.D., Physics, UC Riverside, 1966 Athens, GA

By Jason

March 27, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

In some cases, I am all for genetic testing. My son was born with a rare birth disease (1 in 40,000 births) and we had testing done to see if we could find out a cause or reason for it. In this case, I think the testing is a good thing.