On BioScience and Life and Such

No I do not need a genetic scan to know my kids

In Uncategorized on October 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

post to news.thinkgene.com

I have three children. I know them very well. Every parent should. I know that they have strengths, – some things they do very well (they know it too). I know that they struggle with other things (they are aware of this too). I tell them to tell me if I can help them learn something new or manage something they find complicated. I encourage them when I see that they are enjoying something they are good at. I tell them that it does not matter if there are things they do not master, – everyone can’t be good at everything I tell them. They accept that. We all do.

I can see if they are sick or are feeling unwell. I tell them to tell me if they feel sick or uncomfortable for some reason. I tell them I will do my best to make them well again. I comfort them and tell them that this will pass, and you’ll be fit as a fiddle again soon. I tell them to eat right, I tell them to stay active. We do this together. I tell them this is because we do not want to be permanently ill in the future.

I know my family, not only my kids. I know which diseases my father and mother have had, and their fathers and mothers too. I tell my kids to do things that will minimize the risk for similar ailments in the future. I try and minimize risk myself too, because that benefits me as well as my children.

When they grow up and can make informed medical decisions, I will tell them that they are free to scan their genetic sequence if they choose to.

I do not however, need a genetic scan to see what is good for them and what is not. I know them.

If you do not know your kids, – please start getting to know them now. To do that you do not need genetic testing, you need attentiveness and presence.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  1. Hey Nils,

    Sure, genetic testing isn’t a substitute for good parenting – but it might still help to guide decisions. As a trivial example, my parents would have been saved quite a bit of trial-and-error diet modification if they’d known from early on that I am genetically lactose intolerant.

    I don’t think anyone is advocating that parents stop listening to their kids or allowing them to explore their own life choices; but if there is additional information available that might help parents come to a decision, why ignore it?

  2. But what good is this information from the SNP chips????
    That’s all I ask. Someone step up and admit that the info gleaned from the SNP data is absolutely worthless, we shouldn’t be selling it as a guide for anything but how gullible and curious we are to look at base pairs that may have no meaning now OR in the future…..Nils is right…….a family history is a much better tool…..too bad most scientists rely on sequence rather than good clinical sense…
    Why push the science that doesn’t exist. We have family history data and research that goes back decades, not just to 2006…..Man, why can you guys get that?


  3. I meant why can’t you guys get that the best science available is not the most recent SNP study. Nor the most recent indel study…..it is the tried and tested family history for starters…..then valid sequence studies (for at least 5 years and with solid replications)……..to be augmented with STANDARD medical tests……


  4. Daniel. I have read your posts on this issue and I agree with most of what you say. I also agree with your comment above. My point is this: If your children have complaints you should by all means get genetic tests to aid any diagnosis. Lactose intolerance is a good example although keep in mind that the C/T-13910 SNP is not of any diagnostic value until the child is, say, more than 8-10 years old. However, as you point out in your own posts, the 23andme panel is (currently) not going to give you any valuable information when it comes to making life-style-like decisions for your child. It may in the future, but even the truly predictive tests of the future will carry with them significant ethical issues, – especially for non-consenting children.

  5. My dear blog friends,
    first of all, you have to know what I’ve wrote also this morning to Wiley as well as large numbers of physicians, including oncologists of IJC and NCI, Nobel Prize 2008 for Mecidine, as well as to my dearest friend Nils, as criticism to HPV vaccination aiming to prevent cervical cancer in ALL young women (!!!), that Biophysical Semeiotic Constitutions really exist and are “maternally” transmitted. As a conseguence, if a father is involved by whatever disorder, there is no danger for his children, when mother is not involved by the same disease!
    Secondly, it is unavoidable for the health of mankind, that physicians all around the world would konow, beside the constitutions of their patients, the related Inherited Real Risks: for instance, the women invoved by brest cancer at 50 year age, have been an Inherited Real Risk (ore seldom more) in mamma quadrant, since birth, BUT nobody has recognized it overlooking my theories! About 30 of these women are successfully treated by me, since 5 years, with Mediterranean Diet (ethimologically speaking: no cigarette smoke; physical excercise; BMI normal, a.s.o.), Coniugated-Melatonin and personalized NIR-LED applications (techically speaking: LLLT) on their mamma, where is localised Inherited Real Risk. The title of a paper, which will be published in about a week in SciPhu blog, sounds: “Meadle Age of Medicine, Overlooking Quantum-Biophysical-Semeiotic Constitutions and Related Inherited Real Risk”. And I invite you all to read and comment it!

  6. […] No I do not need a genetic scan to know my kids […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: