Talk:23andMe
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly thoserepresenting the subject of the article, arestrongly advised not to directly edit the article. SeeWikipedia:Conflict of interest. You mayrequest corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, orcontact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article really, really reads like an ad.
To the precious poster who did not sign, I agree. I'm adding a tag to address this.TPREX (talk)05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is ad-like. I note in particular that care is taken to avoid names of competing vendors, placing in context of existing and better established genetic tests, etc.152.132.8.194 (talk)13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It reads like an ad and does not mention other companies. Moreover, there's a lack of any criticism and objectivity on the usefulness of results given to clients. It has been shown that many deseases are not governed by an existing genetic predisposition but more by lifestyle, nutrition, exercises... In 2010, a blog of the scientific magazine Nature reported that 23andme had mixed up samples of 96 clients. (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06/consumer_genomics_company_snaf_1.html)— Precedingunsigned comment added by81.108.156.234 (talk)20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My impression absolutely concurs with and reflects the comments previously mentioned, but I also have serious concerns about the absence of information pertaining the privacy implications of sharing genetic/medical information and how this data is currently being used (such as for "research" and who has access to it, as well as potential future information sharing and whether consumers will be notified about privacy policy changes, and whether the option to opt-out will be available and/or honored.Blk Mtn (talk)03:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Blk Mtn[reply]
The 'Media' section is unusually large and does not contribute to the scope of the article to give facts on the company. I would shorten it to a single sentence that mentions that the company has been featured widely in the media linked to a few sources.— Precedingunsigned comment added by81.108.156.234 (talk)20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a number of news articles about this company (and its competitors) relatively recently, which could be used as sources in an expansion of this article. I may do it myself later, but in case anyone gets to it before I do, here are some which may prove useful:
It's also all over various blogs, for those who wish more background, but those are of course generally not consideredreliable sources.
Thanks,JavaTenor (talk)22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be interesting to note the origin of the company's name, especially for non-native English speakers.
88.1.6.247 (talk)13:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.I am a member ofWikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope ofmedicine. Since your article is already under has our tag, I have now reassessed it to make sure if is in the right WikiProject. Upon reassessment of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:
Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks!Renaissancee(talk)17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article begins with a mini-catalog of companies in the field. Maybe such a catalog would be more appropriate in theMedical genetics page. Genomas[1] is another genetic medicine company to include in such a catalog.Page Notes (talk)15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get a logo (even low-res) to represent the article?76.200.157.188 (talk)03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However, critics warn in the scientific literature that health predictions are not currently effective enough to have any clinical utility.[11]" Regardless of the citation, I don't believe the line contributes anything to this article. It would be more relevant and appropriate to discuss opinions regarding health predictions elsewhere. To me, there doesn't appear to be a good reason for this line to be in this article and I think it should be deleted.Russell Dent (talk)14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be helpful to collect here a list of sources about 23andMe and its current communication with the FDA. I'll start with one here; feel free to add others by replies or edits to this talk page section.
{{cite journal}}:Invalid|ref=harv (help)--WeijiBaikeBianji (talk,how I edit)02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blaine Bettinger has includeda list of articles on his website.HelenOnline04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite journal}}:Invalid|ref=harv (help)--WeijiBaikeBianji (talk,how I edit)15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hensley, Scott (25 November 2013)."FDA Tells 23andMe To Stop Selling Popular Genetic Test".National Public Radio: All Things Considered.
There are some good quotations from experts there. --WeijiBaikeBianji (talk,how I edit)23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some related commentaries on this, with the first being an annotated set of links.
Blue Rasberry(talk)19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article on Wikipedia for a long time is that it has been sourced from company press releases rather than from independent journalistic and scientific sources. For a company whose products and services are tied up with medical claims, as 23andMe's products and services undeniably are, it is important to source this article as much as possible according to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. There is a lot of discussion in the medical literature about how reliable gene tests are, to date, in identifying human disease risk, and I cite some of the current sources in a broader source list on genetics and human biology, which I share with all Wikipedians so that you can use the sources to verify articles. (You are also very welcome to suggest new sources for that source list. Medical sources, which I can check at a comprehensive biomedical library in my town, are especially welcomed as suggestions.) --WeijiBaikeBianji (talk,how I edit)21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several recent additions to the article have included sloppy interpretation of sources and lack of fact-checking (e.g.basing interpretation on the headline instead of the facts behind the story). Please be careful, especially when we are talking about legal issues. It is also worth reading and citing different sources to get the full story.HelenOnline09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to correct the article, but someone reverted it. 23andme used to sell them, and may or may not do it in the future, but it does not do it now. It allows old customers to view previously bought info, but the article should not say that the company is selling assessments.Roger (talk)18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Schlafly Are you suggesting that Wikipedia does not reflect the sources cited, or that the sources themselves are incorrect? I fail to understand your rationale for removing this information. Blue Rasberry(talk)18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a response, I haverestored balance to the article, and in the process expanded the product description. Pleasediscuss here if necessary.HelenOnline13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian web page for 23andMe features a 9,000 word Terms of Service crammed with legalisms. 'Nuff said.David F (talk)16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the underwriting facts can be trimmed and folded into a company overview. The initial funding by Google and others is worth mentioning, but the later additional offerings could be omitted.Timetraveler3.14 (talk)22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Ph.D in finance but I have no idea what a series D and series E round is related to venture captial, if this is important it should probably be explained or otherwise omitted.
Information regarding the development of the technology and science of this product and its algorithms should be included. How does DNA from one's saliva provide enough DNA to sequence and guide interpretations? Who decided this should be the first commercially-available gene sequencing product like this, and why?Mp6180 (talk)22:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.... if i'm not mistaken about there being an alert template for articles thatshould be updated to reflect specific recent news."Large DNA study using 23andMe data finds 15 sites linked to depression" in Washington Post of Aug 1, 2016 ("Scientists announced on Monday that they had pinpointed [, using-23andme-data,] 15 locations in our DNA that are associated with depression, one of the most common mental health conditions and one that is estimated to cost the world billions in health-care costs and lost ...").
--Jerzy•t10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in general having content about people filing lawsuits isWP:NOTNEWSWP:CRYSTALBALL stuff, often (not always, and making no judgements here) driven by people connected to the suits financially or emotionally.
Its best to wait until there is some significant action - like a class being certified or a judgement. Many of these go no where. The content below is hyper-local, timewise.
On November 27, 2013, 23andMe customer Lisa Casey filed aclass action lawsuit against 23andMe in theSouthern California federal district court allegingmisleading advertising of its PGS test "when there is no analytical or clinical validation for the PGS for its intended uses". Casey is suing for at least $5 million in damages, representing the aggregate of the $99 PGS test purchase price paid by thousands of customers the plaintiff believes to be in the class.[1][2][3]
On December 19, 2013, another class action lawsuit was filed against 23andMe alleging misleading advertising by Tara Stefani and Tanya Vullanueva in theMassachusetts federal district court.[4]
References
--Jytdog (talk)02:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if a customer in EU orders the 23andme test NOW (December 2017), is the amount of health information same as a customer ordering in India or any random country?
ee1518 (talk)13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now twice removed content touting their science. Both times the refs (PMID 27479909 andPMID 28892059)were primary sources perWP:MEDDEF. Thefirst time this was added, there were no results stated and this was (in my view) borderline OK... but it is still grabbing a primary source and talking about it, which is not what we do here. We summarize secondary sources, not "report" on primary sources. Thesecond time it was added was worse as it stated the results.
If some good quality secondaryWP:RS source actually reports on the fact that they are publishing science, that is noteworthy and fine to discuss. For theresults of their science, that should be sourced to a secondary source perWP:MEDRS.Jytdog (talk)12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog (talk ·contribs) removed the issues with primary sources and improved the article quite well, so I'm taking down the template that I added.R9tgokunks✡00:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:R9tgokunks Inthis diff you restored: a) an image that is copyvio (checkthe file upload) and b) content based on a press release, which is company marketing. WP articles as you know should be driven by independent sources; a whole section built from press releases is no longer a WP article.Jytdog (talk)00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
23&me now has 10 million users. I do not know how to cite sources, but this is indeed true. It can be easily found out with some basic research. I even have proof from them.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.23.39.251 (talk)00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[| This article] is pretty interesting to answer your question. It's written by 23andme engineers and it shows how they run imputation on 1 million people per day! And there's plots spanning over ten days. So definitely more than ten million. And the source is - in an indirect way - actually the company itself, at least the engineering departmentYinwang888 (talk)07:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the companies name "23andMe Holding Co." Or "23andMe, Inc."? Stock records show it using the suffix "Co." While the website and crunchbase show it using the suffix "Inc."WiinterU (talk)19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"23andMe Health Reports by Chip VersionV1V2V3V4AV4V5"
93.106.5.243 (talk)11:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how recent new feature this is, as of 26th May 2024 they claim they just launched this:
"JUST LAUNCHED for 23andMe+ Premium: three new cancer reports Powered by 23andMe Research.
Everything in Health +plus Ancestry Service, plus:
"
And then they have this very expensive feature which is NOT available for existing customers, and ONLY available for people living in United States:
"23andMe plusTotal Health™DETECTS 200X MORE DISEASE-CAUSING VARIANTS‡MORE INFOOur most advanced health membership including next-generation sequencing.ΔLearn about Important Information for Total health$999/first yr.NOT currently available to existing 23andMe customers."
https://www.23andme.com/total-health/
"To be eligible for 23andMe+plus Total Health, you must be 18 years or older and live in the US"
