MyHeritage is advertising how good DNA is from a medical point of view,
and the right way to interpret the results. That may be fine for
Americans, who do their own prescribing (one woman said that she knew
more than her doctor; Americans usually have an assortment of meds, like
the lawyer running a depression site, who couldn't afford to buy his
medication because a client hadn't paid his bill,) but really, DNA is
not that relevant unless there is a reason for looking.

Queen Victoria had the gene for hemophilia, and infected most of the
royal houses of Europe, but it appeared from nowhere. My grandfather
had hemophilia, and it has come out in my sister's family, but I can't
find any trace of it before him. A genie researching Pop's sister's
family has heard nothing. Years ago, I did a blanket medical profiling.
A doctor's referral was required. My red cell sedimentation rate
was high. My G.P. told me that it could indicate a propensity for
arthritis, but taken with other readings, it was meaningless. I
wouldn't even look at DNA without qualified advice. It is like the
author of "Three Men in a Boat," who decided he had every condition
mentioned in a medical encyclopedia. His prescription was: "3 meals a
day and a good bed at night."

In practical terms, any DNA results in my tree would come from my wife's family, and she isn't interested. But is there a DNA test that is
specifically tailored for genealogists? The woman who discovered that
her mother's husband was not her father: that kind of incident is
unavoidable.

E.& O.E.,

Doug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)