Part A Health History Questionnaire To Be Completed By Participant And Reviewed With: Fill & Download for Free

Summary: Its reliability is low. This is a flawed and misleadingly titled study by long-time anti-wind lobbyists.It mistakes correlation for causation, and overstates correlationIt downplays or ignores long-understood impacts of both bias and impacts of change in creating annoyanceThere are significant unstated conflicts-of-interest, biases and allegiances to an anti-wind lobbyist group among the six authors and reviewersOne of the authors has been actively involved in creating anti-wind bias and annoyance in these sites for yearsIt should be considered against the 17 major world-wide reviews to date which have found no health impacts from wind generation.The study overstates causation and correlation, and understates the impact of bias of the studied groups.a. Nissenbaum et al are overstating the strength of the correlation that their data shows. In contrast to the conclusions, figures 1 and 2 show a very weak dose-response, if there is one at all. The near horizontal 'curve fits' and large amount of data scatter are indications of the weak relationship between sleep quality and turbine distance. The authors seem to use a low p-value as support for the hypothesis that sleep disturbance is related to turbine distance. A better interpretation of the p-value related to a near horizontal line fit would be that it suggests a high probability of a weak dose response. Correlation coefficients are not given but should have been to indicate the quality of the curve fits. Intrinsik points out an additional failing of the report:Although there was a statistically significant difference between the mean PSQI scores in the near (7.8) and far group (6.0), it is important to remember that both of these average scores are greater than 5, which would qualify both groups as “poor sleepers”. When one examines the reported “% of PSQI score >5” no statistical difference between the near and far groups was found (p=0.0745).b. As the Intrinsik assessment points out:Given that the relationship between noise from wind turbines and health concerns is the fundamental premise of the study by Nissenbaum et al., it is surprising that the authors gave such little consideration to collection of actual sound data measurements at the study participant homes. The use of post-hoc sound data, visually obtained from figures in reports, is not scientifically defensible and should not have been used to draw conclusions about the findings of the questionnaires with distance from turbine locations. [16]c. Intrinsik also points out the misleading title of the study, another case of overstating conclusions available from the data:We also believe that the title of the paper “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” is not supported given the nature of the data presented. No evidence with respect to sound level (noise) and its effect on sleep and health has been presented in this paper [16]Given that the authors themselves admit that they can't construct a dose-response curve, their conclusion that wind farms affect sleep is surprising:In their paper Nissenbaum et al. state that noise emitted by IWTs can affect sleep. However, their results do not support this statement. In fact, the authors state that “The data on measured and estimated noise levels were not adequate to construct a dose-response curve...” and no statistical analyses were conducted to assess this supposed relationship. Therefore, we do not believe that Nissenbaum et al. (2012) show any statistical difference in overall “poor” sleep quality or sleepiness between the groups. [16]d. The studied communities, via agitators such as Nissenbaum, have developed strong negative attitudes to wind farms. As this study shows, this is a much better predictor of the effects Nissenbaum is claiming than any actual noise from wind farms. [4]Intrinsik goes further and asserts the conclusion that the authors, if unbiased, would have found from the data, that the study groups were annoyed by changes in their environment and self-reported health impacts arose from annoyance with the change:The authors pointed out that visual cue and attitude towards wind turbines “are known to affect the psychological response to environmental noise”. While this may be true, visual cue and attitude by themselves have been shown to be stronger drivers of psychological responses than a wind-turbine specific variable like sound itself (e.g., Pedersen 2004). Therefore, a conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the self-reported health effects of people living near wind turbines can be likely attributable to physical manifestations from an annoyed state, rather than a wind-turbine specific factor like noise. Indeed, the weight of evidence in the wind turbine and human health literature points to a causal relationship between self-reported health effects and annoyance, which is to say annoyance brought on by the change in the local environment(i.e., a decrease in amenity) that wind turbines represent (Knopper and Ollson 2011). [16]e. The authors' treatment of bias is poor, stating without evidence that accounting for selection and reporting bias would make their conclusions stronger, not weaker.f. The sample size is small as is the control group (many studies have small sample sizes; this makes this less authoritative, not worthless in and of itself.)The study group has undisclosed biases influenced by one of the authors.This is not Nissenbaum's first study of the Mars Hill or the Vinalhaven wind farms. He ran studies there in 2010 and 2011 as well, using a format pioneered by anti-wind folks in the UK and then by Nina Pierpont, creator of Wind Turbine Syndrome. [3], [9] The a-scientific studies are so poorly constructed that they are guaranteed to make people ascribe new symptoms to wind turbines, and to take completely ignored minor symptoms and turn them into major complaints. These studies have pre-loaded the biases of these study groups, making it difficult to accept the the conclusions of this better structured study. The data this study is based upon is not new data, but data that was obtained several years ago that has been presented at the ICBEN conference in London (UK) over a year ago and has been presented as part of anti-wind farm submissions, which is not unusual, but the data and the conclusions Nissenbaum et al have been putting forward has been strongly criticized in the past. [10] For example, a 2012 Massachusetts expert panel had this to say about the conclusions:details of how homes were identified, how many homes/people were approached, and differences between those who did and did not participate are important to know. Without this, attributing any of the observed associations to the wind turbines (either noise from them or the sight of them) is premature. [16]The authors' pre-existing bias is not disclosed or accounted for.Jeffery Aramini is the person most often interviewed in newspaper reports but the study is co-authored with Michael Nissenbaum and Christopher Hanning.a. Aramini has maintained a lower profile than Nissenbaum and Hanning, but is on the Advisory Group of an anti-wind lobbyist group, Wind Vigilance. [11]b. Nissenbaum is a long-time anti-wind activist and also a member of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance. [1]c. Hanning is a long-time anti-wind activist as well, who has been writing anti-wind papers that have not been able to get into even low-impact, peer-reviewed journals and is also on the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance.[2] [12]Fronting with the lower profile Aramini in newspaper interviews appears to be a convenient way to disguise the deep and long-standing bias of the authors.The authorial bias can easily be detected by the inappropriate use of the emotionally laden "industrial wind turbine", a term which was selected and focussed grouped by anti-wind lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers.[14] Neutral language includes "wind turbine" and "wind turbine generator".The thanked reviewers have unstated biases and conflicts-of-interest as they are paid anti-wind experts who have a long history of directly testifying against wind energy.a. Carl Phillips is relatively new to this group, having been asked to leave his post at an Alberta university for taking tobacco industry money and remarkably finding that tobacco products were much less harmful than people thought.[6] He has found a new source of funds in anti-wind lobbying. As he says on his blog, Ep-Ology:I knew what answer I was going to present from the start. So when I wrote my COI [conflict of interest] statement, I did not hesitate to describe, matter-of-fact, that I do work as a testifying expert on behalf of communities fighting the siting of local wind turbines.b. Rand not only testifies, his firm gains revenue from measuring sound near wind farms for complainants and to assist litigation. [7] Rand, in any event,c. James has been testifying for fee against wind farms since 2006.[8]Phillips and James are both members of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance as well. The three thanked are bolstering their court room pitches, and cannot be considered credible unbiased assessors. If they are the only peer reviewers, this is grounds for retraction. As their conflicts and pre-existing biases are unstated, this too is grounds for serious concern.Noise and Health is a rarely referenced journal of low impact.The journal, Noise and Health has a very low impact index of 1.2, meaning that few researchers reference their studies; there can be a variety of reasons for this including poor quality or trivial papers. [5] The journal may not have sought independent reviewers who would have pointed out the flaws in the article, but may have accepted the reviewers that came with the article as suggestions. If the journal did not gain separate review, this is a reason for retraction in and of itself.Wind Vigilance, on whose Advisory Group five of six authors and reviewers sit, has been promoting wind health issues in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence and against 17 major studies' findings for years.As Wind Vigilance is a central theme to this, it would be useful to understand their positions and the degree of evidence behind them:Based on a review of the evidence, the Society for Wind Vigilance is satisfied that there is a significant probability of adverse health effects for human subjects living within 2.0 km of land based industrial wind turbines. The Society for Wind Vigilance recognizes the urgent need for further human health research to finalize guidelines for siting and noise levels that will protect human health. In the interim the Society for Wind Vigilance recommends that land based industrial wind turbines be sited a minimum of 2 km from the property line of non participating residents. Distances greater than 2 km will typically be required for special terrain such as turbines on ridges and offshore turbines. [13]Bolding is mine to indicate statements which require elaboration:1. This statement was released April 2012, six months before the first peer-reviewed paper that found any issues with wind energy and health was published. In the meantime, 17 major reviews by independent and credible organizations worldwide of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed research found no issue with wind energy and human health. On what grounds did Wind Vigilance make the assessment that all of the other studies and the vast majority of medical, engineering and acoustic professionals were wrong? On what grounds did they decide on 2 kilometers?2. "Industrial wind turbines" is the preferred emotive phrasing of anti-wind lobbyists. It is not neutral language in this discussion, just as "wind farms" is the preferred emotive language of pro-wind advocates (including me). This language was created by lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers and other astroturf funding undiversified fossil fuel organizations.[14]3. The reasoning behind greater setbacks on ridges and lakes is not explained, but given the weakness of the rest of their position, it can only be to ensure that wind turbines will never be seen or heard. Obviously this is an extreme and foolish position.That five of six authors and reviewers of this paper are so tightly associated with an organization with such a strong and strident opposition to evidence-based siting guidelines and wind energy in general is indicative. That they do not make clear their association, their long-standing bias and their conflicts-of-interest is also indicative.17 major reviews have found no health impacts from wind energyThis single paper must be contrasted to the 17 (to-date) major reviews world-wide of hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed articles related to wind energy, health and noise which have found no health impacts. All studies agree that a small subset of people very close to wind farms find the noise annoying. [15] The best consensus is that the vast majority of health complaints attributed to wind energy are the result of a psychogenic or communicated psychosomatic illness; people are making themselves sick when they are told that they will get sick. [15]Full disclosure. This assessment was developed with the assistance of:Dr. David Perry -- Dr. Perry holds degrees in electrical engineering and neuroscience from The University of Melbourne and a PhD from the Bionics Institute examining how sound stimulation from a cochlear implant is represented in the brain. Dr. Perry is also on the Board of Directors of community-owned wind project Hepburn Wind in Australia.Richard Mackie - Mr. Mackie is an Engineer with degrees from the University of Auckland and the Australian Graduate School of Management. He is Managing Director of Advanced Energy Consulting (Australia) which does work related to wind energy projects.The Intrinsik professional assessment upon which some of the comments are based was funded by CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association).References:[1] Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum - The Society for Wind Vigilance[2] http://docs.wind-watch.org/Hanning-sleep-disturbance-wind-turbine-noise.pdf[3] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nissenbaum%20mars%20hill&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.windaction.org%2F%3Fmodule%3Duploads%26func%3Ddownload%26fileId%3D2043&ei=RzeVULiTDYGy2QXEpoHwAg&usg=AFQjCNHLopLcBGMgsKzhxKeL2QbR8V8GNQ&sig2=Uu5T1odRG-X0xq7qyoBtbw[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004783[5] Journal and Academic Rankings[6] Tobacco researcher leaves U of A[7] Wind Turbines: Published Articles[8] "Wind turbine syndrome" is more wind than syndrome[10] http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/201107/00000300-AKT5757C7CO026-BGI54ED19RO026.pdf[11] Jeff Aramini, DVM, MSC, PHD - The Society for Wind Vigilance[12] Dr Chris Hanning - The Society for Wind Vigilance[13] News - The Society for Wind Vigilance[14] Turbine foes try to forge national opposition movement[15] Wind farms don't make people sick, so why the complaints?[16] http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Intrinsik-Review-of-Nissenbaum-2012.pdfAdditional references:[1] Additional background on the authors and the nature of the preceding studies performed by Mr. Nissenbaum here: A Vet, A Radiologist, And An Anaesthetist Walk Into A Scientific Controversy...[3] Nissenbaum paper recycles claims on wind energy and health already found inadequate by courts and expert panel[4]BigCityLib Strikes Back - The Full NissenbaumLike my content? Help it spread via Patreon. Get confidential consulting via OnFrontiers. Email me if you’d like me to write for you.

★★★★NOTE: This is a review of the 2015-2016 23andMe kit and website available to US customers. From 2013 to late 2015, 23andMe offered a somewhat different product (wiki), so when reading any 23andMe reviews be sure to take note of the review date.In this review I will be coveringThe kit (ease of use, processing, time frame)The product (what you get, reports overview, accuracy, website layout)The Privacy Policy (you should read it)Overall thoughts and suggestionsThe KitI received the 23andMe kit as a Christmas gift. The box is small and light, and comes with return postage so that you can send it back at no cost. Instructions in the kit are very straightforward, and all the tools you need are there. Just add spit :)First, I registered the kit at 23andMe and also set up my user account. This included agreeing to 23andMe's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, and filling out a questionnaire that resembled a medical history form. Then I spat into the tube and sealed it as directed. I took it to a post office the same day, 1/7/16. The post office gave me a tracking number, so I was able to see when the box was picked up (around 1/12). On 1/19 I received an email from 23andMe informing me that my DNA was being extracted. I was encouraged to visit the website and view a short video on 23andMe's DNA extraction process.How long does it take? 23andMe provides a tracking bar at the top of your main account page that shows which process your sample is going through currently, and its progress toward the end reports. My reports were ready by 2/2, so from start to finish, the entire process took about a month. I thought that this was very reasonable considering the 6-8 week estimate given by 23andMe.The ProductI was excited to see my reports and logged in right away to view them. Upon logging in I was presented with the Reports Overview page. This page had six clickable boxes: All Reports, Carrier Status Reports, Ancestry Reports, Wellness Reports, Traits Reports, and Tutorials.I chose to view All Reports, and was brought to a page with clickable links to each report. Here is a list of the reports you'll receive with the current 23andMe, in the order that they appeared on my page:Ancestry CompositionFacial FeaturesHairPhysical CharacteristicsPhysical ResponsesSkinTaste and SmellHaplogroupsNeanderthal AncestryAlcohol Flush ReactionCaffeine ConsumptionLactose IntoleranceMuscle CompositionCarrier Status for the following genetic disorders: ARSACS, ACCPN, ARPKD, Beta Thalassemia, Bloom Syndrome, PMM2-CDG, Cystic Fibrosis, DBPD, DLD, Familial Dysautonomia, Fanconi Anemia Group C, GRACILE Syndrome, GSDIa, GSDIb, Hereditary Fructose Intolerance, LSFC, LGMD2D, LGMD2E, LGMD2I, MCAD Deficiency, MSUD 1B, CLN5-related NCL, PPT1-related NCL, Niemann-Pick Disease Type A, Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome, DFNB1, DFNB4, PH2, RCDP1, Sickle Cell Anemia, Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Tyrosinemia Type I, Usher 1F, Usher 3A, and ZSS.Let's get Carrier Status reports out of the way first. Most of these disorders you won't have heard of (I sure hadn't). There are gene variants that can determine whether or not you carry these disorders, and 23andMe looks for SOME of these variants. If you are thinking of having children and have a family history of genetic disorder(s), these tests may be relevant to you. Personally they are less relevant to me, but I found the information to be interesting nonetheless.As an example, here is my Cystic Fibrosis test result.According to the report explanation, I still have up to a 1 in 210 chance of carrying a Cystic Fibrosis variant. Basically, these tests are not meant to diagnose, and with current technology it's still impossible (or at least wildly time consuming and expensive) to test for ALL variants of these diseases.There is a tab at the top of this page (and almost every other 23andMe report page) that says Scientific Details. Clicking on this will take you to a very descriptive analysis of your DNA "markers" that were tested, and an interpretation of the results (based on not only your own testing but also on disorder prevalence in certain ethnic groups).In addition to all of this information, you can download your raw DNA data from 23andMe and have it analyzed by other companies to discover statistics for more common health concerns. I'll try that out in the future and add the results to this review.Next, the main reason you're probably interested in DNA testing: Ancestry, Haplogroup, and Neanderthal Ancestry reports.Going back to the main Reports page, you can click on Ancestry Composition. The summary page gives us a colorful map that shows where your ancestors came from on BOTH sides of your family.Clicking on "See all 31 tested populations" will give you a more detailed percentage page. My grandmother was Japanese, and she married someone of European descent. My father is also of European/Irish descent. It was nice to see evidence of my 1/4 Japanese lineage in these reports :)Further down the page, 23andMe gives you the option to link parents and other relatives to your biological profile. Doing this will give you more accurate results based on either their DNA tests or their answers to survey questions. Relatives do NOT need to take the DNA test to create an account.Check out this quote from the ancestry page:"This report CANNOT tell you the precise origins of all of your ancestors. The results presented here are estimates, which may change over time as our algorithm improves. This report cannot tell you ancestry estimates for populations for which we do not have sufficient data."When analyzing your DNA, algorithms are used to determine which population segments match your genetic profile with a high degree of certainty. You should not assume that the information presented here is completely accurate, and you should not be surprised if your ethnicity percentages change a bit over time. 23andMe is gathering data, and new data means changes to existing data. Capeesh?Again, the Scientific Details tab explains this concept further by allowing you to see exactly which parts of your DNA are assigned to your ancestries. You can use the "confidence level" scroll bar above your DNA data to see how 23andMe provides a combination of accurate ancestry data and speculative algorithm analysis.I admit that this is still a little confusing for me. Fortunately 23andMe offers an extremely detailed explanation as to how they come up with these results. I haven't read it yet but you can bet I will.Further down on the Scientific Details page is a Change Log. This is where 23andMe will update you on changes made to your data over time. I'm interested and curious to see what new information will be added as more people participate in DNA testing.Ok, on to Haplogroup. Haplogroups are basically a single line of descent that can be traced back thousands of years to a small group of ancestors using a portion of your DNA.An important note: if you are a woman, you have two X chromosomes (as opposed to men who have an X and a Y). Because of this you can ONLY see your maternal haplogroup unless your father or other male relative on your father's side takes the 23andMe test as well to give you your paternal haplogroup. It's a bummer, but that's genetics.For me, this was the part of DNA testing that I was really looking forward to. For years my aunts have suspected that their mother (my grandmother) was of Ainu descent. My maternal haplogroup test results show that this is very likely true.It's hard to see on my map, but Japan is highlighted in yellow. As you can see on this Ancestry Composition explanation page, others may have a more colorful map with a larger haplogroup depending on where their ancestors are from. The Scientific Details page for your haplogroup will give you a tree displaying the migration pattern/lineage of your inherited DNA. Interesting stuff!Now let's take a look at Neanderthal Ancestry. According to 23andMe, "Neanderthals were ancient humans who interbred with modern humans before becoming extinct 40,000 years ago. This report tells you how much of your ancestry can be traced back to Neanderthals."According to my results, I have more neanderthal variants than 78% of 23andMe customers...yet neanderthal ancestry accounts for less than 4% of my DNA. I have no idea what this means. Scrolling down a bit, the Neanderthal Background section somewhat explains:"Non-African populations have Neanderthal ancestry amounting to about 1-2% of their genomes. With few exceptions, Sub-Saharan African populations have virtually no Neanderthal ancestry. Average numbers from the 23andMe database are shown to illustrate this difference."That statement is accompanied by a little graph that shows that the average number of neanderthal variants among non-Africans tends to be high, while for Sub-Saharan African populations it is low.Still confused, I clicked on the Scientific Details tab. Here is a wealth of information and explanation that I'll probably spend a month poring over. This page provides a graph detailing the genetic markers tested for neanderthal ancestry and three other subcategories (these are the four clickable boxes across the top of the graph).Scrolling down gives you a list of your own neanderthal traits (I didn't have any). There is also a "white paper" link that takes you to a brief dissertation on Neanderthal Ancestry Inference. Obviously there is a lot of information here. If it turns out that you have neanderthal traits (such as a hairier back or a different posture) I suppose this might be pretty interesting stuff!A brief look at the other reports provided by 23andMe, most of which focus on physical traits, characteristics, and other fun stuff. At first glance these reports may seem a bit silly because you already know what your eye color is, how long your fingers are, whether you are lactose intolerant, etc. But the science behind the reports is pretty fascinating, and this also gives you a chance to find out if you have recessive or rare traits for your genetic makeup.Let's look at my Facial Features report for example. Clicking on "Facial Features" will give you subcategory reports for Face, Eyes, and Ears. The category Face currently contains four reports, which are Cleft Chin, Dimples, Unibrow, and Widow's Peak. 23andMe compares your DNA to that of its other customers with similar DNA profiles, and determines your likelihood of having these traits. Sometimes the algorithm is wrong, and sometimes it's right. In my case, about 90% of the reports were accurate compared to my actual traits. Here is one that was wrong:I definitely have a widow's peak. Notice the paragraph at the bottom...it's telling you that the report "best applies to customers of European descent". Maybe my widow's peak is inherited from the Japanese side!Basically this is a bell curve. No matter how good the algorithm is, everyone is different and no one can predict with 100% accuracy what traits you have based on a group model. So don't be upset when 23andMe gets something "wrong". This is the data-gathering part of 23andMe, and you are participating in the research.Below each result graph is a little box with more information about the trait you're viewing: the biology and genetics behind the traits, and other factual tidbits. I thought these were interesting and fun. Again, the Scientific Details tab gives you a more in-depth look at your reports and the process of calculating your results.Similar data is available for the other remaining reports. Another report that was "wrong" for me was the lactose intolerance report. I am definitely lactose intolerant, but my report said that I was "likely tolerant" based on the analysis of a particular gene marker. 23andMe explains how there are many other determining factors for this particular trait, and even takes time to describe some of these variants.That about sums it up for the 23andMe reports. But wait! There's MORE.When you are done perusing your reports, click on the Tools tab. Here you have the opportunity to use your newfound data in a variety of ways: Share & Compare, DNA Relatives, Family Tree, Find Genetic Counseling, Forums, and Raw Data.Share & Compare allows you to invite family members to create accounts on 23andMe. Again, they don't need to take the DNA test to do this. 23andMe will ask them medical history and physical trait questions, and use the answers to supplement your reports and build your genetic model. With your permission, your relatives (and friends if you choose) will also be able to view your test results.DNA Relatives is a great tool for those who are searching for close relatives. I've heard several awesome stories about adopted or orphaned kids who were able to find relatives this way. It does involve the sharing of your genetic information, so look the page over carefully before agreeing to anything. Again, you can also take your raw DNA data to other sites and search for relatives there if you don't find anything in 23andMe's pool. Knowing most of my close relatives already, I decided it couldn't hurt to opt into this. The result for me was a long list of 2nd-through-7th cousins. *shrug*Family Tree uses myheritage.com to help you build a family tree, if you're into that.Genetic Counseling is for people who receive results from their DNA testing that require further assistance or analysis. Carriers who want to have children, folks with a strong history of genetic disease or cancer, or people interested in alternate testing would find this feature useful.Forums is exactly what you'd expect: a forum for 23andMe members to discuss the product, get help, complain, etc.Raw Data is where you can download your DNA data to use however you see fit. I plan to take mine to a company like Promethease to gather additional health information. If you are REALLY into genetics, this page is also where you can click on individual chromosomes and get a long, long, long, long, LONG list of genetic information. Here is like 1/4 page of my chromosome #1:Yeah.You can also continue to participate in 23andMe's genetic research by answering survey questions about your health, environment, etc. (To do this you must read and agree to the Research Consent Document available on the site). Survey questions pop up randomly across the site, or you can access them intentionally at the bottom of almost any report page. An example question:I should mention that so far, I have not been spammed at all by 23andMe by phone or email. Once in a while I get a little "digest" sort of email, that's all. Opting into the survey questions doesn't equal spam, thankfully.Privacy and TermsNOTE: Again, please check the date of any review you read. The "new" 23andMe released in late 2015 is under a privacy policy currently dated 12/2015. Any reviews dated earlier than that should be checked for relevance and accuracy.If you are into medical privacy, you need to know that 23andMe will share your information under certain circumstances. There is no question, it's very clear in their privacy policy. If you do not want the results of your 23andMe's analysis to be available to 3rd parties EVER, don't take the test. It's as simple as that.Here are just a few relevant bullet points that I gathered from the privacy policy:With a court order, 23andMe can disclose your information.23andMe stores your information in the US and other countries (other countries = different laws).In the event of a merger/acquisition, your information will be transferred to the new company."If you do not complete a Consent Document or any additional consent agreement with 23andMe, your information will not be used for 23andMe Research. However, your Genetic Information and Self-Reported Information may still be used by us and shared with our third-party service providers to provide and improve our Services (as described in Section 4.a), and shared as Aggregate or Anonymous Information that does not reasonably identify you as an individual (as described in Section 4.d)."23andMe "will use your information and share it with third parties for scientific research purposes ONLY if you sign a Consent Document. Note that we will disclose your individual-level information only if we obtain additional explicit consent from you.""You may withdraw your consent to participate in Research at any time by changing your consent status on your 23andMe Account Settings page, or by sending a request to the Human Protections Administrator. 23andMe will not include your Genetic Information or Self-Reported Information in new research occurring after 30 days from the receipt of your request."Here are some terms bullet points as well. These are all things you should consider before having your DNA tested:"You should not assume that any information we may be able to provide to you, whether now or as genetic research advances, will be welcome or positive.""You may discover things about yourself that trouble you and that you may not have the ability to control or change (e.g., your father is not genetically your father)."Here's a biggie: "The laboratory may not be able to process your sample...if your saliva does not contain a sufficient volume of DNA, you do not provide enough saliva, or the results from processing do not meet our standards for accuracy." The Terms go on to describe what you should do if your sample cannot be processed. I have seen SO many reviews complaining about this. If it happens, don't freak out. Follow the instructions and you'll be just fine."Genetic research is not comprehensive. While we measure many hundreds of thousands of data points from your DNA, only a small percentage of them are known to be related to human traits or health conditions...an important mission of 23andMe is to conduct and contribute to this research. Many ethnic groups are not included in genetic studies...some interpretations may not apply to you. Future scientific research may change the interpretation of your DNA.""You should be careful about sharing your Genetic Information with others. Currently, very few businesses or insurance companies request genetic information, but this could change in the future.""Genetic Information that you choose to share with your physician or other health care provider may become part of your medical record and through that route be accessible to other health care providers and/or insurance companies in the future."23andMe does NOT provide medical advice or diagnosis.To Sum It Up:I found 23andMe's service to be informative, interesting, and fun. I enjoyed learning about my ancestry, and am fascinated by the information in the traits reports. There is some information that I still don't understand and probably never will, but I'm ok with that. I'm glad to have this data available, and am excited to be a part of 23andMe's research project. I think that DNA will become a bigger part of our lives in the future, and by having my DNA analyzed I hope to contribute information that will be helpful to others as this technology improves.I found the process of submitting the sample to be easy. I thought the website was easy to navigate and the information was accessible and displayed clearly. I was satisfied with the data I received, and although there are more things I'd like to know I did my research and went into the testing knowing what 23andMe could and could not provide. As of now I haven't used Customer Service so can't review it.I would recommend 23andMe to people whoWant to find relativesWant to look into their carrier status and other medical information that can be uncovered through DNA testingWant to learn about their genetic traits and ancestryWant a copy of their own DNA dataAre interested in participating in DNA researchI would NOT recommend 23andMe to people whoDon't want to wait up to 3 months to receive their reportsDo not want their DNA data to be available to companies or individuals with either good or bad intentionsDo not want to contact/be contacted by relatives they do not knowHave no interest in reading through detailed reports on their genetic traits and ancestryAre not tech-savy enough to set up a user account or navigate a basic websiteThanks for reading and sorry it was so long...I wanted to cover all the bases :)

There is a direct and positive correlation between intelligence and the degree of education reached, the more intelligent the greater the probability of being able to advance to a higher level of education. So it’s no surprise that highly educated people are smarter. “It's a well-worn (if not-entirely-agreed-upon) idea that college makes people more liberal. And a fairly recent 2016 Pew study reports that to be the case. Pew reports that most educated Americans have grown increasingly liberal over the last couple of decades.”Source: Why Are Highly Educated Americans Getting More Liberal?‘A report from the Pew Research Center finds a wide partisan gap between highly educated and non-highly-educated Americans. Not only that, but the share of college grads and post-graduates who are "consistently liberal" (based on their answers to a series of policy questions) has grown sharply in the last 20 years.”Source: Why Are Highly Educated Americans Getting More Liberal?“Split it out by party, and the shift is even starker. Among the post-grad set, “more than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaners today are "consistently liberal," up from fewer than one-in-five in 1994. Likewise, among college grads, it jumped from 12 to 47.”This squares with something Pew found last year:“while the partisan identification of people without college degrees have held steady over the last couple of decades, people with college degrees increasingly identify as Democratic or lean that way”. Source:nA Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation"There's some pretty good evidence that going to college leads people to have more liberal attitudes on social issues, in particular on issues of tolerance, of difference and issues of gender equity," said Neil Gross, sociology professor at Colby College, who has studied liberalism at colleges. Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003"We've known for a while that people with more education tend to be more ideologically consistent than people with less education," he said. "In some sense it's not surprising to see that polarization and party sorting is happening most among people who are super highly educated."A Deep Dive Into Party AffiliationSource: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“Although education plays a big factor in producing liberal-minded people, we are also a product of our environment, and educated people are influenced by environment, which brings up the ongoing argument of what has more influence, genes or environment? Although social scientists agree that both have influence, it is accepted that as we age, leave home and experience life this environmental flexibility gives us the opportunity to adjust to changes as we are influenced to a greater degree based on what we learn and experiences we encounter.” Source: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation“Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media, show business or academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or show business, or academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of modern life.`”A Deep Dive Into Party AffiliationI also posit that because intelligent people are motivated to learn, travel, experience new situations, and cultures, they are naturally attracted to that end of the spectrum that engages the brain and challenges the intellect, not so much the physical. So logically, it follows that these people end up with degrees and professions in academia, the media, social and governmental institutions that demand intelligence and learning. This stuff is mindSo turning to politics, can we draw any conclusions in terms of how the two major American political parties stack up. I believe, what we have seen over the last 25 to 30 years gives us some very decided insights, (although antidotally I will agree) as to their collective intelligence. My take is that the Republican party is most decidedly the “Dumb Party” attracting and putting up with the right-wing lunatic fringe and electing members who are decidedly short in terms of simple brain power and common knowledge. The GOP run and elect members to Congress that believe women can’t get pregnant from rape if they “will” the pregnancy to be avoided, and believe that global warming is a hoax, and Trump their esteemed leader has suggested on more than one occasion that Hurricanes could be eradicated if only we were to nuke them, and speaking of Trump, those who don’t know or care about history, are bound to incorrectly read from teleprompter as evidence of his claim during his “historik Jewlie 4th speach” that “Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do”, this according to Trump in describing the US War of Independence in the late 18th century. Damn this man has a way with words and knows how to update “Historay” in order to learn our kids real good. This stuff is mindEven former Republican presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal challenged his Party to “ Stop being the dumb party”. and most recently “Conservative columnist and author George Will told CNBC that young people consider the Republican Party "the dumb party" while warning that the GOP is "doing its very best to drive them away permanently"Source: George Will: Young people now consider GOP 'the dumb party'The perspective comes after Will was asked to respond to a recent piece by New York Times columnist David Brooks that warned of a "coming GOP apocalypse" as younger adults leave the party.“I think David Brooks is late to the apocalypse,” Will told CNBC's Kelly Evans. “I think it’s already happened. In fact, young people have made up their mind about the Republican Party, that it’s kind of the dumb party.”Source: George Will: Young people now consider GOP 'the dumb party'Will called the GOP a "cult" of President Trump while contending the party is suffering from an "absence of ideas."Source: George Will: Young people now consider GOP 'the dumb party'You will find little to none of this stupidy for the most part in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. This stuff is mindA number of theories have been proposed about the nature of the relationship between political views and intelligence. Some scholars (for example Stankov, 2009) have argued that: This stuff is mind“Conservative political ideologies tend to be associated with lower intelligence on average. Conservatives generally value tradition, respect for authority, and social order, and tend to be leery of innovation and change. These scholars have argued that such values tend to be associated with cognitive rigidity and may therefore appeal to people who have difficulty with intellectual challenges that require them to process novel information. In support of this, Stankov (2009) cited evidence that people with more conservative views tend to score lower on IQ tests and to have lower levels of education.”Source: Intelligence And Politics Have a Complex Relationship“An alternative theory, originally proposed by Hans Eysenck, is that higher intelligence is associated with avoidance of extreme political views in general.”Source: Intelligence And Politics Have a Complex Relationship“A recent proponent of this view is Rinderman who argued that more intelligent people tend to have civic values that lead them to support political systems they believe will foster education and the growth of knowledge (Rindermann, Flores-Mendoza, & Woodley, 2012). Hence, according to this view, intelligent people tend to believe that moderate/centrist parties are more likely to promote their particular social interests compared to more clearly left or right parties”.Source: Intelligence And Politics Have a Complex RelationshipThere is a definite propensity for Liberals to be the more intelligent members of our species, and this has now been backed by proof:“Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science wrote a paper that was published by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigated not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. Source: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire.” Source: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“Kanazawa offers this view of how such novel values sprang up in our ancestors: Imagine you are a caveman (if it helps, you are wearing a loincloth and have never shaved). Lightning strikes a tree near your cave, and fire threatens. What do you do? Natural selection would have favored the smart specimen who could quickly conceive answers to such a problem (or other rare catastrophes like sudden drought or flood), even if — or maybe especially if — those answers were unusual ones that few others in your tribe could generate. So, the theory goes, genes for intelligence got wrapped up with genes for unnatural thinking.” Source: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“It's an elegant theory, but based on Kanazawa's own evidence, I'm not sure he's right. In his paper, Kanazawa begins by noting, accurately, that psychologists don't have a good understanding of why people embrace the values they do. Many kids share their parents' values, but at the same time many adolescents define themselves in opposition to what their parents believe. We know that most people firm up their values when they are in their 20s, but some people experience conversions to new religions, new political parties, new artistic tastes and even new cuisines after middle age. As Kanazawa notes, this multiplicity of views — a multiplicity you find within both cultures and individuals — is one reason economists have largely abandoned the study of values with a single Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum: there's no accounting for taste”. Source: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“Kanazawa doesn't disagree, but he believes scientists can account for whether people like new tastes or old, radical tastes or Establishment ones. He points out that there's a strong correlation between liberalism and openness to new kinds of experiences. But openness to new experience isn't necessarily intelligent (cocaine is fun; accidental cocaine overdose is not).” Source: Intelligence, Personality, and Interests in the Career Choice Process - Phillip L. Ackerman, Margaret E. Beier, 2003“So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.”Source: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/add_health_study.cfm“But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king”Source: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/add_health_study.cfm.“The jury may be out on whether conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, but there's evidence that they may be physically stronger. in 2009, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a fascinating paper by Aaron Sell, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The authors measured the strength of 343 students using weight-lifting machines at a gym. The participating students completed questionnaires designed to measure, among other things, their proneness to anger, their history of fighting and their fondness for aggression as a way to solve both individual and geopolitical problems.”Source: Formidability and the logic of human anger“Sell, Tooby and Cosmides found that men (but not women) with the most physical strength were the most likely to feel entitled to good treatment, anger easily, view themselves as successful in winning conflicts and believe in physical force as a tool for resolving interpersonal and international conflicts. Women who thought of themselves as pretty showed the same pattern of greater aggression. All of which means that if you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry.” Source: Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com