Thank you for your thoughtful comment! Not sure I made any claims, at least not any easily verified with the references... but yes... it's heavy stuff for sure. I'll refer again to the 17-minute video on our website (maybe not quite so scary after watching that?). The equipment on the table behind me in the video is everything I would need to accurately read all 3-Billion base pairs of your DNA, and advise you about any of the known DNA conditions (good or bad) found in your DNA. Of course, simply telling you that stuff that would be against FDA reporting regulations. The references are there. No need to take my word for it - the FDA comes right out and says it themselves.
"(The Allowed) Test only reports 3 out of more than 1,000 known BRCA mutations and negative result doesn’t rule out increased cancer risk"
Who would object (loose) most if you changed your DNA to avoid developing a disease?
When & how was the FDA founded?
What foundation paid for it?
What other groups does that foundation fund or own?
Who was Fritz ter Meer?
What codex did he champion?
This goes way deeper than you know.
I didn't say you personally, I said your post made a claim, which, it definitely does. Perhaps "declaration" would suit better. I also read your "sources," which, I must say you took a bit of liberty with... Again, as I said before, there is a big difference between your analogue of the FDA to the Nazis burning books because the FDA will "not allow" one's specific DNA profile "to be written," and just not writing it at all... No one is under obligation to provide you with your genetic coding !! (Hey, you, doc; yeah, write me up my genetic code real quick. No? You Nazi!!...). Not saying the FDA isn't doing these things, but, from the "evidence" you provided... I'm not seeing it. You're like me... Take one little shred and run with it :) (And just to my defense, I do have a graduate degree so, I'm no stranger to reading and research ;) . From what I saw, the alleged "censorship" of our genetic coding is just not there. These articles don't seem to show (to me) quite what you say they do... They merely say they DO NOT TEST for x,y,z. Again, very different from "We have tested for xyz, are aware of xyz, and just won't tell you Which seems to be the "declaration" you are making. (Again, I guess you could draw from this info the guess [unless you have some privileged info] that the FDA "told 23 and me not to test for the variants". Article just says they don't do it. Doesn't say why from what I could see... (On that note, might I suggest utilizing some other reference form, such as MLA or Chicago which allows the reader to actually locate the references in-page, so to speak? Much better with such sensitive topics, imo...)
On that note, tho, I will say I didn't quite understand the point of the ncbi link... could you perhaps explicate that for me? Is it just a picture of human DNA or "variants?" (Sorry, I was a psychology major ;)
That being said, I do think you're idea is very interesting and creative, and admittedly beyond my scope of expertise. But I can still read, which I will be doing more of now, to "investigate" some of the FDA's history, etc.
Again, I see it like this: A private company is being told by the Gov that they can't do something: namely, test for certain genes (not not reveal said results... that's Different--). For all we know, the FDA found some "problem" with 23and Me's testing for those variants; the results aren't accurate, what have you.
You know, kind of like the issues I'm sure which might come up if you wanted to... idk, turn me into a purple, furry, tailed creature, like one of your advertisements suggests... Interesting, but, I'm sure it's just not as "easy" as... x,y,z.
I apologize for the second reply. Go here: https://web.archive.org/ input the 23andMe site and roll it back 10 years. count the reports you were ALLOWED to receive. Then look at today's product offering. Google "court fda 23andme" see what you find. Or go read our whitepaper: https://adultgeneticediting.com/downloads it more or less walks you though it.
Do you suppose the science got dumber in a decade?