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

a reply to: CreationBro

The blood spots are used specifically for genetic testing genetic disorders,

Yes. But that does not require sequencing.

And to be clear, he stressed, there is also no genome database. The state does not sequence or extract the DNA from the blood spots collected, although a researcher might, depending on the study.

The testing is for specific genetic and/or blood chemistry markers. It is not DNA sequencing.

a reply to: CreationBro

Might I intervene and say No.? I don't think we know anything for sure. We can only speculate at best.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

The blood spots are used specifically for genetic testing genetic disorders,

Yes. But that does not require sequencing.

And to be clear, he stressed, there is also no genome database. The state does not sequence or extract the DNA from the blood spots collected, although a researcher might, depending on the study.

The testing is for specific genetic and/or blood chemistry markers. It is not DNA sequencing.

Correct thank you. Correct me if Im misreading this, but from the quotation you've provided:

"[...] although a researcher might (sequence or extract the DNA from the blood spots collected), depending on the study."

a reply to: CreationBro

Yes. And those researches have no way to determine from whom the samples came.

Not so good for nefariousness, but good for statistical studies. A perfect double blind. Is that bad?

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: CreationBro

Might I intervene and say No.? I don't think we know anything for sure. We can only speculate at best.

100% ageed. From my earlier reply:

originally posted by: CreationBro
a reply to: Phage
or consent.

We are dealing with educated guess work here so it may or may not be. I'd love to find out though!






^^dont know whats going on there. Should be quote from my earlier reply.

a reply to: CreationBro

Perhaps we'll find out once those associated with the Idiocious Spectros Society come clean, that would be coolatrocious.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

Yes. And those researches have no way to determine from whom the samples came.

Not so good for nefariousness, but good for statistical studies. A perfect double blind. Is that bad?

I see your point and concur.

My only qualm is from my reply, last post on page 1:

" Do we know that for sure? I'd imagine one could be identified by that sample, should a genetic test from ancestry or 23andme were sold or given by a parent or relative of one of these individuals."

Always a pleasure debating Phage

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!

a reply to: CreationBro

" Do we know that for sure? I'd imagine one could be identified by that sample, should a genetic test from ancestry or 23andme were sold or given by a parent or relative of one of these individuals."

If they already have a sample from 23andMe, what would be the point? To what purpose the backtrack to a postnatal blood sample? I don't think the researchers really care about who the sample came from. I guess my imagination is deficient.

a reply to: CreationBro

Curiosity, would you seriously send your dna to 23 and me? I've thought about it, but then ... No I don't think I could do it, they'd clone me after I died or something #'d up like that.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

It wasn't actually any of the sequencing companies that helped find the killer.

It was a website where people say, "Hey! Here's my genome. Anyone match it?" That's really dumb.

But I bet the revenues of the sequencing companies have dropped. Bigly.

a reply to: Phage

It sounds ridiculously stupid, I conur, along with the accuracy of their procedures.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

" Do we know that for sure? I'd imagine one could be identified by that sample, should a genetic test from ancestry or 23andme were sold or given by a parent or relative of one of these individuals."

If they already have a sample from 23andMe, what would be the point? To what purpose the backtrack to a postnatal blood sample? I don't think the researchers really care about who the sample came from. I guess my imagination is deficient.

Dude your imagination is never deficient haha.

I was referring to a parent, sibling, or relative that took the ancestry or 23andme test, that would then be used as a sequence basis to identify a person from a blood sample, a person that had not taken one of these voluntary tests.

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: CreationBro

Curiosity, would you seriously send your dna to 23 and me? I've thought about it, but then ... No I don't think I could do it, they'd clone me after I died or something #'d up like that.

At one point i thought about it too. I wont now, but what point? For all I know my DNA has been researched etc. apparently.

a reply to: CreationBro

I understood that. I just can't come up with a rationale for a researcher, using an anonymous sample, to bother with such a search.

But, did you see my post above? About the sequencing companies?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

I understood that. I just can't come up with a rationale for a researcher, using an anonymous sample, to bother with such a search.

But, did you see my post above? About the sequencing companies?

I did. I don't need a source I recall. Thats kind of hilarious and ironic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

Except that the researchers don't really have any way to determine who the samples came from.

That's correct. But someone could take the samples and compare it using the company that helped identify the CA serial killer and voila.

It's already been shown that GEDmatch will provide the data to anyone based solely on their assertion that they have a right to request it.

a reply to: Riffrafter

But someone could take the samples and compare it using the company that helped identify the CA serial killer and voila.

Why? Help me out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

I understood that. I just can't come up with a rationale for a researcher, using an anonymous sample, to bother with such a search.

But, did you see my post above? About the sequencing companies?

It isn't the researchers I'm concerned with. It's the people downstream from them who can get the samples from the researchers that I'm worried about

Once the sample leaves the researcher's hands, literally *anyone* can end up with it.

And that is simply unacceptable from a privacy standpoint. Completely unacceptable as far as I am concerned. My daughter was born in CA in 1991. I have a strong personal interest in this issue.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

But someone could take the samples and compare it using the company that helped identify the CA serial killer and voila.

Why? Help me out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A whole host of reasons, Phage.

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.

The list of reasons and nefarious motivations is huge. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.