Sometimes, some-more healing reportis thebad thing.The successful United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendsagainstmost women removing genetic screeningsfortheir ionizationto breast cancer.Why?Becausethe testsare imperfect:forevery ladywho gets testedfor genes comparedwith conflict breast cancer, even some-morewill secretly exam positive, heading spooked patientsinto nonessential operationor mental trauma. Super poor genetic contrastfrom forward illness startups, suchas 23andMe,have difficult cancer showingforusallby augmentingthe accessibilityof unlawful healing information.
After finding the deteriorated BRCA1 gene, well knownto enlarge breast cancer 60to 80%, singer Angelina Jolie’s underwent the in advance surety stand in mastectomy.Herbrave admissionintheNew York Timesbrought most indispensable courtesyto breast cancer awareness,butit’sdangerousinthe handsof the statistically ignoramus population.
For instance,asNew York Timesstatistical guru, Nate Silver, once remindedme,while breast cancer mammogramsare 75%accurate, the ladywho tests certainonlyhasabout the 10% possibilityof essentially removing cancer.Sincethe immeasurable infancyof women don’thave cancer,thereare distant some-more womenwhowill secretly exam certain (hereis the beneficial blog postwiththe numbers worked out).Most importantly, surveys exhibitthat most people don’t assimilatethe math at the back offalse positivesin cancer testing,andmaymake ignorant decisionsas the result.
The same math bindstrueforthe deteriorated BRCA1/2 geneof Jolie’s confession: researchers guessthat thetiny 0.11to 0.12of womenhavethe inadequate gene.“I holdin you do genetic contrastfor BRCA1/2with suitable counseling,” writes Universityof Southern California’s David Agus, the singleof Steve Jobs’ cancer doctors,Theanswersarenot elementaryinthis boxand need gifted professionalsto pleadwiththe patient.”
Traditionally hundreds,if thousandsof dollarsto test, the lodge attentionof poor genetic contrasthas sprung up. 23andMe, the singleofthemostpopular, offersthe useforaslittleat $ 99,andhas even daredto importinonthe BRCA debateonthe association blog.
Citing thenew investigatethat foundno disastrous romantic consequencesfrom patientsafter guidanceabouttheir BRCA1 mutation,the 23andMe blog concludes,“The commentaryareimportant sincethat the visit critiqueof direct-to-consumer contrastis formedonthe arrogancethatit causeseither critical romanticdistressor triggers pernicious actionsonthepartof consumers,” wrotethe blog.
“Giventhe deficiencyof justificationfor critical romanticdistressor inapt actionsinthis subsetof mutation-positive businesswho concludedtobe interviewedforthis study, broader screeningof Ashkenazi Jewish womenforthese 3 BRCA mutationsshouldbe considered.”
Sometimes,however, intentional surveys don’ttellthe totalstory. Time,intheir coverstoryon Jolie’sdecision, recountsthetaleof the single ladywholikelyhad nonessential medicine operationafter guidanceabout the genetic defect.“"She freaked outandhad the shared mastectomy,”said Otis Brawley, arch healing military officerforthe American Cancer Society,who disturbedthatthis patient’s sold turnwasnotas discouragingasshe disturbeditwas.
Interestingly, TIME’s author, Kate Pickart, arguesthe monetary costsof genetic contrasthas case massrunon genetic tests. Even thenew sustenance underneaththe Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)only mandates 100% word coveragefor patientswith the family storyof genetic flaws.
But,atjust $ 99 (and substantially distant reductioninthe future), monetary barriersare crumbling.This isn’ttosaythat genetic screeningisbad,itjust complicates thingsforthe restofus, generally thosewho don’t assimilate statistics.The some-more womenget tested,the some-morefalse positives exist,the reduction assured patientsand physicians turnin the marchof action.
Maybeouronly goal outofthis cheaper contrast turnis recordthatmakes showing some-moreaccurateand some-more predictive. One earnest resolutionis thenew brathat all the time monitors low hankiefor carcenogenic signs (below)
So, perhaps, prior to long,wewill innovateour approach outofthis dilemma.
Gregory Ferenstein
Source : http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/ArYS11YUO7o/
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar