Censored By 23andMe

MEDICAL FACTS:

My gallbladder died-emergency removal

Gallstones-My risk=11.1%=1.58x7.0%Typ.

Hypertriglyceridemia [started decade ago], yet my data says I have typical odds:

rs964184-CC

Diagnosed as bipolar for almost two decades and meds made my high stress career liveable, 

but my data says I have reduced odds:

rs4948418- CC

True Believers think:

1.Large segment sizes are passed intact and are proof we have detectable cousins. 

2.Segments are tested and can be detected in 23andMe raw data. 

3.They are doing a public service when they stalk others to proselytize and/or intimidate 

them with harassment. 

4.I care about their opinions even when Iam mostly revolted by them. manipulative and 

abusive stalking of me on every post, including those where I originated the topic. 

5.Consider it their duty to derail the posts and topics of with whom they disagree with 

personal attacks and irrelevant off topic provocations.

Invisible Pink Unicorn in its Natural Habitat

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150538693581457

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,

They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;

They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;

So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

Rudyard Kipling-The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Do not try to convince the True Believers.

This is my list to remind myself not to respond to their provoking remarks:

thetick:

fauxdk:

AndreaBadger:

GeeBee of Bavaria:

Geneadict:

altai volk:

Maureen Higgins Markov:

Tanaquil:

Glenn N.:

MMaddi:

DNFTT

Family Surnames

Beauchamp, Bird, Blythe, Carruthers, Childress, Ehart, Fielding, Gowder, Hall, Headen, 

Hobson, Hueston, Little, Massey, McConnell, McDonald, Montgomery, Moore, Norwood, 

Reinholds, Reynolds, Rucker, Scharf, Shurvington, Woods, Work

Family Locations

Oregon, Washington, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, 

Virginia, Scotland, Kent, England, Ireland, Germany, France, Ireland, Isle of Sky,

Family Locations

Geographic Facts: 

Father-orphaned in Denver;lived in Nebraska. Mother born Arkansas;ancestry in KY, GA, SC, 

NC,&Virginia. 

My maternal lineage is, starting with my mother:

Noda Moore-AR

Lillian Rucker-AR

Susan Willie Caldoni Saffroni Little-AR

Susan Childress-AR

Susan Elvina Childress-GA

Sarah Massey-NC

Sarah Work-SC

Margaret [Unknown]-VA

This is a reader's digest version of my maternal lineage:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/tu/um_910/MOORE.HT

About My Family

Diagnosed Type II Diabetes though my data say I have average risk:

rs7903146-CT

Type 2 Diabetes:My Risk=25.3%=.98x25.7% Typical risk

I have T2D/Type II Diabetes and one maternal aunt who has it. It did not start until my 

mid-50s. I retired from 26 years of working in corrections, which kept me physically 

active. 

I have hypertriglerides and we have yet to get them under control, which may be why my 

mother/aunts were affected with late onset AD.  Diet does not seem to work. Meds do not 

seem to work. I may have to exercise more. 

All my med. history is documented with my health insurance company and my offspring are 

few, so I am willing to participate in any research. My full genome sequence for my mtDNA 

is already public with the NCIB and I am an open book on my medical history.

I am diagnosed and treated for being bipolar. The True Believers who have not yet 

admitted and gotten treatment are a pain.

MY DNA MADE PUBLIC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_42_00001320---d006-.html

http://www.fbi.gov/atlanta/press-releases/2011/fake-doctor-sentenced-for-health-care-

fraud-and-criminal-hipaa-violations

I am J1c3d yDNA and H3 mtDNA per FTDNA

These are my places for data on my DNA:

http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/User:JohnLloydScharf

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.427524841456.204572.637766456

http://www.facebook.com/groups/HaplogroupJ1/

Haplogroup J1c3d

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-mtdna.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnLloydScharf/J1draft

P58+ M267+ L147.1+ M369- M368- M367- L65.2- L222.2- L174-

http://www.facebook.com/groups/213733318644557/

Haplogroup - H3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnLloydScharf/Haplogroup_H3_(mtDNA)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JN020360

HVR1 differences from CRS:16519C 

HVR2 differences from CRS:263G,315.1C 

CR differences from CRS:750G,1438G,4769G,6776C,714­8C, 8860G,15326G,15519C

My mtDNA Fasta File

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-mtdna.html

My mtDNA Data Processed

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-ydna.html

X STRS:

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-x-str-results.html

Autosomal STRS: 

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-autosomal-str-results.html

Notes On My 23andMe Raw Data

http://testing-johnlloydscharf.blogspot.com/2011/12/notes-on-my-23andme-raw-data.html

My mtDNA haplogroup/haplotype: 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150258318196457 

My mtDNA disease profile: 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150437948586457 

My yDNA haplotype 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150258318201457 

My yDNA haplogroup 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150258318206457 

My yDNA STRs 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150256641206457 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150304085646457 

My autosomal STRs 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150266430616457 

My X-STRs 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150256652721457

https://www.23andme.com/you/community/guidelines/

23andMe kit number:

GED M211533

GED M083415

GED Kit Number: F125649

FTDNA Kit Number: 125649A

My raw data at:

http://opensnp.org/users/141

Process it at one of the following. 

http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/FF23utils/

http://esquilax.stanford.edu/

Database for Autism:

http://autismkb.cbi.pku.edu.cn/

List of SNP-trait associations

http://snp.ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/list_gwas.cgi

For those who believe "Race" is a scientific concept:

http://amciv.wordpress.com/category/race-science/

On FTDNA, my shared cM runs from 20.77cM to 66.02cM and includes 138 individuals.

23andM for the same range of 20.77cm to 66.02cM in RF, it includes 41 individuals.

About Me

Tiffany at 23andMe Customer Service (Tiffany B.) wrote:Dec 20, 2011

(6 hours ago)

John,

We have suspended your Community posting privileges effective immediately. Your recent posts are in violation of the Terms of Service agreement as well as our Community Guidelines. See https://www.23andme.com/about/tos/and https://www.23andme.com/you/community/guidelines/ 

Please note that you still have the ability to send and receive messages and invitations. Also, this revocation does not affect access to your data or account. Should we receive reports from other users that you are abusing the messaging system, that privilege will also be terminated immediately without notice.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tiffany

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150437853467727

DNA Infallibility

New Scientist has an article making the case that DNA testing is neither clear-cut nor definitive:


... much of the DNA analysis now conducted in crime labs can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias. We asked forensic analysts to interpret a sample of real DNA evidence and found that they reached opposing conclusions about whether the suspect matched it or not. Our subsequent survey of labs around the world also shows that there are significant inconsistencies in the guidelines on how to interpret a sample. The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual.

. . .

We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.

In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".

If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.

"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.

Christine Funk, an attorney in the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Minnesota, says the results of New Scientist's survey have profound implications for criminal justice. "The difference between prison and freedom rests in the hands of the scientist assigned the case," she says.

. . .

So what can be done? This year, the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), which issues guidance to US labs performing forensic DNA analysis, published new recommendations regarding the interpretation of forensic DNA.

. . .

It seems lab managers would welcome consistent rules. Forensic lab directors at the 19 labs we surveyed also provided their views about how their analysis is currently done: 15 either agreed or strongly agreed that interpretation procedures should be based on national standards, and 11 agreed or strongly agreed that decisions over alleles should not be based on analyst opinion.

Labs must also take steps to avoid bias. Butler says that some labs continue to insist upon seeing suspect profiles before analysing evidence from the crime scene, which could lead to biased decision-making (see "Crime Scene Investigation: Impartiality"). Analysts also often know too much about a suspect and other evidence to be impartial, and public labs often have close ties to police. "Crime labs, including DNA labs, should not be under the control of a law enforcement agency," says one US analyst, who wished to remain anonymous. "We are scientists, not cops or prosecutors."

Pelosi goes over health bill, leaves March 18 vote possibility open - TheHill.com

Pelosi goes over health bill, leaves March 18 vote possibility open - TheHill.com

Penn State Law Professor on DNA Evidence

Penn State Law Professor David Kaye discusses his book Double Helix and the Law of Evidence published by Harvard University Press.

Professor Says Use Of DNA Evidence Is Not An Open And Shut Case

Professor Says Use Of DNA Evidence Is Not An Open And Shut Case

The Right to Confront Witnesses

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11mon2.html

"Just last June, the Supreme Court decided that when prosecutors rely on lab reports they must call the experts who prepared them to testify. It was an important ruling, based on a defendant’s right to be confronted with witnesses against him, but the court is about to revisit it. The justices should reaffirm that the Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to call the lab analysts whose work they rely on."

Continued Attempts To Use Bitemarks As Evidence

The use of Bite Marks as forensic evidence was in some trouble before it became widely attacked. I doubt that it meets the requirements of scientific evidence in any way. Witnesses are under a great deal of fire for using it, even though some of the investigative programs in television seem to still sell it as viable.

However, one commentator says, "He (Michael West) also asserts that he has made 600 dental I.D’s and 300 bite mark I.D.’s. Of the 100 board certified forensic odontologists in the United States, about 90% of them have testified for the opposite side when Dr. West is called as an expert witness.”

There seems to be no such thing as "Board Certified Forensic Odonologists," though the "Board," referred to is not a professional organization like a medical association or bar of attorneys with powers to certify authorized by a state or to remove the ability to practice. If there is a state or federal agency which has requirements outside their own lab for certification and sanctioning, I have yet to discover it.

According to the Chicago Tribune:
"This is the epitome of junk science cloaked as academic research," said Dr. Michael Bowers, a California odontologist and a frequent critic of bite-mark comparisons. "I don't think his claims are supported. The study just doesn't pass muster."

Many of the techniques or their error rates are coming under the microscope of the court system in much the same way as the polygraph did decades ago. This includes DNA.