Last week I was criticized harshly about the shock and awe I used with the picture of a parasite being passed from an animal and comparing it to what needs to be done with DTC Genome Scans.

I was asked to be critical and analyze the work. And frankly, I am a little embarrassed. That doesn't mean I will take down the post. It means I will begin to state the rationale for my argument.

The premise is this, DTC Genomics has cast a shadow on the field of genetics and genomics. In not only the clinical utility but also the scientific utility, this boondoggle has screwed the field. The community had been seduced by receiving offers of "Advisorship" for "The Next Google" or whatever the pitch was.

A few smart people bit, including George Church, who I think was hurt the most. His PGP received less attention and less gravitas as it was lumped in with 23andSerge and Navigenics cocktail parties in SoHo......

I said this back in 2007 when I had coffee with Amy Harmon, prior to her Pulitzer . She asked me why I was against this DTC movement. Well, unlike then I have thought about this for a while now.

The singular reason is: "The marketing and promotion of these services has caused a tremendous amount of confusion as to what exactly is important"

????

"You don't mean your rant about how this is medicine and should be regulated as such?"

Well, that is an issue of importance. They have been playing important, just like a TV doctor would.

"You don't mean the issue where they steal your genome?" Well, again, they may be confusing what is important in the genome and making you think their 500k SNP analysis IS important.....

"You don't mean the rant about how doctors confuse Personalized Medicine with DTC Genomics?"

Again, this is an issue about what is important and what is not.

Detracting attention from that which is important is probably the biggest crime that is being committed here. What we are now going to see is a phase of skepticism drawn to the whole field of genomics. Don't believe me? Read here

"As scientists including Venter aim to usher in an era of personalized medicine based on individuals’ biological differences, companies such as 23andMe and Navigenics already offer tests that plumb people’s genetic makeup. The article’s authors said “the nascent industry” could improve predictions by developing a consensus on how to do the analyses."

So I ask, "Is the nascent industry personalized medicine? Or is it 23andME and Navigenics?"

By lumping Personalized Medicine with these companies, you begin to take on their traits......

"Google-Backed DNA testers Don't always agree"

Ok, so now personalized medicine is Google Backed and the results are sketchy at best.......

Do you see what I mean?

Don't believe me? Read This
The Journal? Personalized Medicine. the Article? DTC Genomics......

I hope you see what I am getting at. Still having a hard time?

Take David Agus' MD Quote

"Make preventative genomic medicine part of your practice"

Meaning: Use Navigenics DTC Genomics test and you will be practicing "preventative genomic medicine" The new Marketing Word for "Personalized Medicine"

So, there ya go. They want to be personalized medicine, yet disclaim any use of the test for personalized medicine.

This huge circus is one of the biggest distractions to ever befall Personalized Medicine, especially as the story of the epigenome begins to unfold.

We have to ask ourselves
1. "What was gained by supporting these companies?"
2. "What did these companies do to advance personalized medicine?"
3. "What researcher gained greater attention or funding because of the DTC Genomic Buzz?"
4. "What percentage of physicians gained greater appreciation of genomic medicine?"

IMHO, these companies have mad a mockery of personalized medicine and the research that is going on in the space

The Sherpa Says: Hopefully that will explain why I feel that these companies are parasites playing off of our name.....