Quote:
Originally Posted by concretegurl  Debra I pm-ed you..glad we agree on most and can reasonably discuss the rest or the details, but I can't help but poke this with a stick-the vet reference started something like this him saying he knew nothing about these tests but felt this about them...c'mon I've seen you post way better contradictory information! ... |
You are taking one sentence out of context and not quoting accurately at all as well as making it look like something it is not. He said he has no experience with the tests he most certainly DID NOT say he knew nothing about them. I quoted that whole section so you would see what the expert was talking about. Not fair to now pull one sentece out and make it look like because he does not use the test he would not understand the science behind it!
These are the two references I used:
What's your mutt? Accuracy questioned in DNA dog tests - theoaklandpress.com This one starts by telling about a vet who was also a past president of the MI Veterinary Association, who had his dogs tested with the 3 main kits available to the public. One dog had 10 dog breeds identified between the 3 tests and only one breed was repeated on any test!!! It also quotes John Fyfe,
an associate professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at Michigan State University, who, "offered his insight on the tests to Steep in an e-mail. Fyfe maps dog and cat DNA for disease causing mutations.
“I’ve heard of these breed ID tests but had no experience with them myself,” Fyfe wrote. “My take on it is that they have no basis and are basically a scam because the DNA determinants of most phenotypic traits are as yet unknown.”
Phenotypic traits are observable properties of any living organism.
“I believe that most veterinarians are likely to be as accurate as these tests, just using the phenotypic cues we can observe in the exam room,” Fyfe added.
You can see this man has the credentials to be a creditable source. It is his JOB to identify dog and cat DNA for disease causing mutations. He is saying the science behind the test is not accurate enough to give dependable results any more than a doctor observing physical cues in the exam room would be. He does not have to USE the test to know the science behind it. He basically says he wouldn't use it because the DNA determinants of most of the phenotypic traits are not even identified yet.
That is like saying a poison control doctor has no validity and cannot know of the dangers and physical interactions associated with the poisons because he has not tried the poisons themselves. The guy is an expert and he says they are invalid and goes on to say why.
and this one:
DNA Testing Your Dog where the author gives examples of bizarre results that do not correlate with the dog tested. He ends it up by saying "Kind of expensive entertainment. "
I honestly TRIED to find even one source that was not connected with the sales of these kits that had a positive comment about their accurancy -- I could not find it. If you have one, post it. Instead of trying to disect my reference into something it is not, find one place not making $$$$ on the kits that says they are worth a hill of beans.
I too hope we can stay amiable but we need to stay
honest first. Not right to try to artifically invalidate a source by taking a sentence out of context and saying something far from what was actually quoted. Never did this expert in the field intimate that he knew nothing about the test. On the contrary he tells what they use and why it is inaccurate to do so.