Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Looking To Define a Healthy Human

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the bet-this-one's-going-to-get-Godwinned-quick dept.

Medicine 125

rtoz writes: Google's moonshot research division, "Google X," has started "Baseline Study," a project designed to collect anonymous genetic and molecular information from 175 people (and later thousands more) to create a complete picture of what a healthy human being should be. The blueprint will help researchers detect health problems such as heart disease and cancer far earlier, focusing medicine on prevention rather than treatment. According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes. Data won't be shared with insurance companies.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Data will be anonymous? (1)

Meshach (578918) | about 4 months ago | (#47533865)

According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes. Data won't be shared with insurance companies.

Given the revelations from Snowden I see no reason to trust Google or any other large American company.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (3)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47533909)

Given the revelations from Snowden I see no reason to trust Google or any other large company. -Fixed that for you.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47533995)

Google can define my ass.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534007)

Fat, pasty, full of shit.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534487)

Not enough storage space to define an ass that enormous and acne-covered.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47533919)

Because foreign corporations never work with their own governments to share private information. Nah that never happens.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#47533949)

While I believe your statement to be true, I think given Google's history and business model it's unwise to assume the risks to the health data that'll be collected come only from government entities. And actually, the thought that the government might get at my health history through this doesn't particularly bother me since they likely already have acquired it legitimately for various reasons.

But Google could easily spin the "limited to medical and health purposes" to include health- and medical-related companies that pay them to serve you targeted ads, based on the data they "anonymously" have linked to you. It's how their overall ad system already functions. And if Google didn't see the potential for them to profit by this, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re: Data will be anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535781)

Uh, so, Google serves me ads for products that will prolong my life that I otherwise wouldn't know about. And that is bad how?

Re: Data will be anonymous? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#47535821)

If you believe most Google ads are for beneficial totally above-board products, you must've been running AdBlock for the past several years.

Re: Data will be anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535851)

The very fact you've seen Google ads means you've been using Google products. Someone has been paying for that. It hasn't been you. It's been the advertisers. That's how it works. Get over it, already.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47534411)

Relax, this is just two very rich guys being concerned about their own (future) health.
Which is a good, and smart thing.

This has nothing to do with collecting and improperly using sensitive, private data.

Re:Data will be anonymous? (1)

Handover Phist (932667) | about 4 months ago | (#47534819)

Two very rich guys have concerns about their bodies, and access to information about everyone elses. They get to judge what is improper or not.

No longer need to spam viagra ads (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47533871)

Now you can target them like a laser!

Re:No longer need to spam viagra ads (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47534151)

Not to worry, spam ads aren't going anywhere. We just get targeted and spammed. Isn't the 21st century wonderful?

The finding (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 4 months ago | (#47533875)

The baseline healthy person is of mixed race, has 1.93 arms and 2.1 children, and is a hermaphrodite.

Re:The finding (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47533905)

I guess I'd better go get 0.07 of an arm amputated.

Re:The finding (1)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47533963)

Friend of mine did that with a shotgun when he was ten, outermost joint of his index finger one one hand. Several years later when he was in shop class he knicked the nub with the table saw and it started bleeding. The nurse came to the room and passed out when she saw what she thought was a freshly amputated finger...

So the results can be highly entertaining, even if only from time to time.

Re:The finding (2)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 months ago | (#47534047)

Slightly related: My older brother cut the tip of his thumb off when working on a shop project. The piece of wood he just cut was falling off the table saw and he reached over the blade to stop if from falling. This was a week before he was supposed to leave for the Naval Academy (he wanted to be a Marine pilot.) To get into the Naval Academy took a Congressional (or Presidential) nomination which are limited per year and he had received one of the few. After getting his the top re-attached, it had died due to lack of blood flow and had to be re-removed. He had delayed his admission because of the accident and after healing up they figured he didn't have the dexterity and control needed to fly a jet.

Re:The finding (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 4 months ago | (#47535171)

That's as bad as the colorblind son in Little Miss Sunshine.

Sucks but I can understand the very stringent entry requirements for military pilots.

So it goes - Vonnegut.

Re:The finding (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 months ago | (#47534171)

. . . I'm thinking of a fake finger tip, some ketchup and a hilariously "pull my finger" joke . . . with a twist.

"Keep the tip."

Re:The finding (2)

disposable60 (735022) | about 4 months ago | (#47533929)

And lives in Asia.

If they're looking to define 'healthy,' the US is not the data pool of choice.

Re:The finding (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47534157)

What they're doing is using data mining to locate biometric readings that aren't frequently followed by a negative health event.

Obviously those metrics will vary a bit on gender, age, and other "healthy" factors that nonetheless influence health.

Re:The finding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535079)

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:The finding (1)

BKDotCom (542787) | about 4 months ago | (#47534045)

All hail our short-armed hermaphrodite overloards!

Re:The finding (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47534153)

Oh boy, brace yourself for thousands more comments like this objecting to the idea that there is one single "ideal human" and finding 'his' exact DNA sequence, even though nobody has stated such intent and there is no reason to do it.

Re:The finding (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47534367)

It is almost certain that such information would be abused by ideologues as well as those looking to maximize profit, both at the expense of liberty.

Re:The finding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534781)

A whole new metric by which we can discriminate against one another ... what can go wrong ?

Re:The finding (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 months ago | (#47536275)

The current practice of doctors and insurance companies using BMI to judge individuals indicates that there is an intent to define a single ideal human.

Re:The finding (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47534163)

Along with a diet of kale and cabbage and a glass of water for each meal, this would be the only politically correct configuration. Anything else would 'offend' some protected group, thus it must be incorrect. I'm sure with state mandated health care, they'll eventually try to enforce this 'standard' on everyone, for our own good of course. In typical leftist brokenness, suddenly "Diversity is disabled for this session."

Promises Meant to Be Broken (2, Insightful)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#47533927)

"Oh that promise to not sell the information? Well, we screwed up and sold it all for $10 Billion. Pay a fine of $10 Million? Sure, that's fair."

Re:Promises Meant to Be Broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534693)

I'd agree with Google if it were just "molecular information". That brings to mind a new generation of anatomy modeling and such. Genetics is where you run into problems. What we know about the human genome 10 years down the road will make it a lot easier to identify the subjects. I think there was already a study reported here about how anonymous genetic data could reveal the identity of subjects.

Re:Promises Meant to Be Broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535373)

I don't think Google would sell it. But if they give it to researchers, it'd be mighty tempting for some researcher to sell it via a 3rd party.

And yes, the Government already has it...why do you think electronic medical records are required?

More on the story... (3)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47533937)

...the initiative, led by Khan Noonien Singh, looks to improve the quality of life and longevity, strength, and memory for all humans, over the entire planet. On the goals of his project, Khan replied, "Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity, but improve man and you gain a thousandfold."

Re:More on the story... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534113)

Just make sure you melt down all the prototypes when you're done, we don't need another Lore incident...

Re:More on the story... (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47534219)

Just make sure you melt down all the prototypes when you're done, we don't need another Lore incident...

Wrong Noonien Singh [wikipedia.org] , dude.

Re:More on the story... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534503)

Well, OBVIOUSLY one of us is not spending enough of their time perusing Memory Alpha, harrumph harrumph!

In all seriousness, I thought OP was creating a portmanteau of the two characters. Now I want to know if they're related.

There goes my productivity. Eh, fuck it, it's Friday.

Re:More on the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534403)

Re:More on the story... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47534645)

I was saddened when he died. He could no longer autogragh the owners' manual for my Cordoba...

Re:More on the story... (1)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#47535971)

...the initiative, led by Khan Noonien Singh

-1, confusing Frankenstein and his monster.

Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47533941)

That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do. Insurance companies will view this as a way to maximize profit by not selling insurance to people who might actually use it.

Is anyone here still naive enough to think that Google would collect information without having some way to monetize it with no regard to the impact on the people involved?

Re:Reality is... (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47533965)

That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.

Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534051)

Until a republican gets elected and repeals it all because of the SOCIALIZMS, GO BACK TO THE SALT MINES WAGE SLAVES.

Re:Reality is... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534131)

That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.

Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Lol, naivete can be funny.

Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."

Re:Reality is... (4, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47534205)

Lol, naivete can be funny.

Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."

Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.

Re:Reality is... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534467)

Lol, naivete can be funny.

Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."

Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.

You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.

Some examples:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/g... [newsbusters.org]

A pastor in Iowa, who is covered under ObamaCare, decried “there’s no compassion in the Affordable Care Act,” after he was told just minutes before receiving life-saving chemo that his treatments would not be covered. The pastor’s family has since emptied their savings account and are now $50,000 in debt.

A February 4 Los Angeles Times article detailed the story of California resident Danielle Nelson who was promised by Anthem Blue cross that her oncologists would be covered in her new policy. Diagnosed with non-Hogkins lymphoma last year, a lump was found near her jaw in January. But when she went to her oncologist’s office, the Times reported she “promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.” Nelson told the Times: “I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night, I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob... [cbsnews.com]

The Affordable Care Act is turning out to be less than affordable for some consumers.

That’s because many of the plans carry huge deductibles, creating potential financial problems for middle-class consumers. Some “bronze”-level plans, the lowest level of coverage, carry deductibles as high as $12,700 per year for a family of four... The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is a whopping $5,081 per year, according to research provided to CBS MoneyWatch from HealthPocket, a technology company that ranks health care plans.

What’s worse, that represents an increase of 40 percent from the average deductible for an individually purchased plan before the federal health care overhaul, according to The Wall Street Journal.

... and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse as the delayed provisions start to kick in.

That said, I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.

Re:Reality is... (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47534549)

You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.

Which, no doubt, you believe utterly uncritically.

Re:Reality is... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534663)

I've actually bothered to do some research on the topic, read articles, had discussions with economists and healthcare professionals, talked to people, etc.

I'm guess you have not gone nearly that far.

PS I get what you're implying, and not only is it untrue, it's a weak and childish attempt to marginalize me via blatant mischaracterization of my dissent. If you have empirical evidence to support your position, present it. If all you have is your opinion, please keep it to yourself, or at the least make it clear that you are not speaking from a position of intimate knowledge.

Re:Reality is... (1)

SlaveToTheGrind (546262) | about 4 months ago | (#47534871)

Agree completely that people don't comprehend the ramifications of the enormous deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums in these so-called "low cost" plans. Add to that the tendency toward ultra-narrow provider networks [politico.com] and the resultant increase in risk of balance billing [nytimes.com] by out-of-network providers.

It's astounding to me how far people are willing to stick their heads in the sand to pretend that the current system is, in aggregate, "better" than the one that we already had.

Re:Reality is... (2)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 4 months ago | (#47534909)

I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.

Glad to hear you support a single-payer system. However, the "current implementation" of the ACA is not a single-payer system. It is a government-managed marketplace, with private insurance companies providing the coverage.

If the ACA truly were a single-payer system (like Medicare is) it would be far more effective at protecting average Americans from being bilked by "insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them."

Re:Reality is... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 4 months ago | (#47534915)

Oh hi there, I'm in my late 40's, but since I actually go to great pains to take care of myself, I'm not obese, weak, slow, and sickly like the average person is.. so I'm in that 'pool' you speak of, the one that 'gets' to pay for everyone else, who fucked themselves up eating crap and never moving off the goddamn couch, except to go to the refrigerator. Know what your oh-so-wonderful ACA is going to eventually do to my life? Ensure that I can't AFFORD to keep doing the things that are KEEPING ME HEALTHY, that's what. Then I'll end up fat, weak, slow, sickly, and miserable. Ain't that a hoot? I resent having to pay for healthcare for people who wouldn't NEED it if they could be bothered to take care of themselves properly.

Re:Reality is... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 4 months ago | (#47536411)

But you will need it, should you be in a car wreck, fall off a bridge or cliff, or even do something as silly as slip on the sidewalk and bang your head. There's all sorts of things that might happen. Hell, you might even suffer one of the many potential massive coronary type events, including those that have nothing to do with how you live (John Ritter ring a bell?) So yes, you should pay in, or have a magnetic tattoo stamped on your forehead that you are uninsured, so when the medics arrive at the scene with your prostrate body, a quick scan will be all the time they need to determine they can leave you there for the coroner, and also bill you for the $1K+ for their trip out to read that fact. (magnetic forehead tattoo that penetrates your skull, so a mere scalping via a motorcycle wreck won't remove the ability to read said tattoo, in case any one is wondering)

Re:Reality is... (1)

trawg (308495) | about 4 months ago | (#47535841)

Huh. That sounds like a good idea. Take a little from everyone and use it to benefit people as they need it. You might not need it now, but others will, and when it's your turn it'll be glad it's there.

Nah, probably too crazy to work.

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534241)

That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.

Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Lol, naivete can be funny.

Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."

Lol, and people who don't read can be downright hysterical!
In the US at least, that is explicitly forbidden, as even a casual perusal of the law would tell you.
Wikipedia for instance: GINA. But because of knee jerk reactions from the uninformed these sorts of activities,that could have already
helped thousands of people, get shot down before they get off the grown.

" The Act prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future. The legislation also bars employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.[1] "

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534165)

Only some types of insurance. I have been denied life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, for example (putting my entire family at risk in the process).

Re:Reality is... (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47534177)

Only some types of insurance. I have been denied life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, for example (putting my entire family at risk in the process).

This is entirely reasonable. Most life insurance companies require a physical exam before they'll insure you. They also keep tons of actuarial data on health risks already. Google will just be duplicating this -- and probably doing a better job of it, which will likely make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to get life insurance, not harder.

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534329)

I'll start a pool and take odds on that utopian conclusion - I'll bet against it myself.

In terms of being "reasonable", I'm afraid I have to disagree with your sense of "reasonable". If insurance companies had their way they would never pay out a single claim (just try making any sort of claim and see how it goes today). Insurance is inherently a matter of managing collective risk - that is the entire premise - that the company collects enough money from enough people that it can afford to pay out claims to the minority of people who actually end up needing it. The insurance companies are trying to find ways to not do that, which is entirely unlike "reasonable" given the nature of the business they have chosen to pursue.

Re:Reality is... (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47534421)

I'll start a pool and take odds on that utopian conclusion - I'll bet against it myself.

Would you rather life insurance companies base their actuarial decisions on crystal balls or witch doctors? Personally, I wouldn't buy insurance from a company that didn't use the most accurate and complete health statistics available. Such a company would likely fold before I died and my beneficiaries could collect on the policy.

As far as insurance companies trying to find excuses to weasel out of paying claims, it's pretty fucking hard for a life insurance company to do that, no? Once you're insured, it's pretty unequivocal when you have a claim.

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534197)

but the costs of insurance go through the roof for those with conditions...

Re:Reality is... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47534123)

That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny affordable insurance to even more people than they already do.

FTFY.

Legally, they can't deny you coverage. What they can do is make your coverage so expensive you can't afford to actually use it.

Re:Reality is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534805)

If you need a procedure performed urgently then how much can you afford? What if you had one day to live? Now how much can you afford? This is the dark side of the medical industry - we'd be just as well off without the whole industry but there'd be a lot of casualties. The question is if we can afford the casualties. Now you start talking about the value of a human life - if you're a 30 year old tech genius then you've got at least 35 more good years of "geniusing" to do so it's probably worth curing you of whatever ails you. If you're 65 it's probably not worth curing you unless you have kids that we can reasonably expect will also be geniuses and it's worth letting you impart more of your "geniusness" on them before you croak. Alternatively if society doesn't put much value on you then you might as well go away right now anyway. The decider is cash value...$$$s. When you're staring down your own mortality it's hard to talk about dollar values but the rest of society is doing exactly that. They'll keep doing that right up to the point the insurance agent gets sick and then they'll be protesting why they aren't covered. We used to practice medicine because we believed it was good to help people in case we ever needed help ourselves. Money means we don't have to care anymore. We traded in our souls for cash a long time ago now. ...but at least America is awesome, right? Go USA! Free market! Woo!

Focusing medicine on prevention rather than treatm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47533973)

I don't believe I'm alone when I say that if Google tried this, they'd get bought out very quickly by big pharma. The last thing big pharma want is for their gravy train to dry up, which is based on treatment; not cures.

Continuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47533975)

got it right again.

Re:Continuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535007)

Well thank goodness I wasn't the only one who immediately recognized that Google is just ripping off Continuum [http://www.syfy.com/continuum]. You'd think with this many geeks, there would have been a Continuum reference earlier. And it's good to see Magda Apanowicz (Emily/Maya Hartwell) back in "The Dying Minutes".

Google People(tm) (1)

Animats (122034) | about 4 months ago | (#47534035)

Now, at last! Google People! In cooperation with the Venter Institute.

Lying Republicans want to steal our healthcare! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534065)

Oh wait, it's the detestable Democrats lying. How about that? What a fucking surprise! Lying Democrats? Who could believe this?

Oh course they are trying now to say that the subsidy afforded to states to setup exchanges and withheld from those who do not was a typo. Get that? 1000s of pages and they made a typo. This of course due to a court ruling that says that those who signed up via the federal exchange cannot get subsidies because of - get this - the wording in the legislation - has to stand.

Which of course will bankrupt Obamacare in short order. But they can't have that, so you see Democrat stooges saying things like "“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it,” Gruber told The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn. “But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.”

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-says

And here we have the same dirtbag earlier saying;

"But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."

Does that sound like a speak-o to you? Sounds like a two faced lying looter to me.

You know damned well it isn't. These fucksticks are lying through their teeth.

But hey, who gives a fuck, the law is what the preznit says it is, he is our lord and our king! He will save us from those rich evil Republicans who seek only to make all poor people sick and die.

Right?

So who out there has even a smidgen of intellectual honesty? Lying administration. Lying cocksuckers in congress. Lying apparatchiks to the left and to the right. All designed to bring tyranny upon our land, to enslave the people and to force state run healthcare down our throats. All this for power.

You want a law? Write it to say what you want and sell that to the people honestly and with true words. That is too much to ask?

But we know what all you progressive assholes will say, anything to support the regime and to put those evil constitution loving bastards in their place.

I hate you stupid fucks more and more each day.

Re:Lying Republicans want to steal our healthcare! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534081)

Why single Gruber out when they ALL fucking LIED to pass this piece of shit?

Re:Lying Republicans want to steal our healthcare! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534309)

We are being ruled over by an elite class that is morally bankrupt. This usually doesn't end well.

That's the problem.

Any society in which one group rules over another group IS morally bankrupt.

That's what "...that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." means.

The Constitution was not setting up a government to Rule Over the citizens, but to administer and arbitrate between them.

Psh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535011)

Go read up on your early U.S. history before spouting things like that. There was a ruling class during the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution. And there was a ruling class when the revolutionary soldiers were being thrown in debtor's prison, and when Washington marched on the Moonshiners west of the Appalachians.

There has never truly NOT been a ruling class in America and anybody who thinks otherwise is most likely an ostrich-like fool.

Re:Psh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535231)

Of, for and by the people ring no bells for you I take it?

De jour versus de facto standards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47536143)

Just because one was written down on paper doesn't mean it's applied, nor applied equally.

I know of two customers who'd love to know (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47534077)

The state and its now satellite insurance companies, who'd love to enforce it on the rest of us.

"and now lets see which of us can touch our toes! Right over from the hips, please, comrades!"
"anyone over 45 is perfectly capable of touching his toes!"

You've got that backwards (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#47534213)

The insurance companies and the subservient state

There, fixed that for 'ya. You're welcome.

The insurance industry didn't get the largest corporate handout to come from any federal government, ever [wikipedia.org] by accident.

Re:You've got that backwards (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47534245)

Actually, I bet it's a lot more bilateral than either configuration. The mutual scratching of the backs while they pretend to squabble for the proles.

Re:You've got that backwards (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47534293)

one other piece..

It takes a large state to build tyranny, whether its strings are pulled by a bunch of ideological loons, or by runaway corporate interests.

Re:You've got that backwards (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#47534451)

Actually, I bet it's a lot more bilateral than either configuration. The mutual scratching of the backs while they pretend to squabble for the proles.

There is no disputing the incredible piles of cash that the insurance industry invested into Washington over the past several decades. Other than that capital investment (which helps to keep the "right" elected officials elected to office) what did the government have to gain by giving this giant gift to the insurance industry?

From my vantage point this was a killer ROI for the industry. And a massive anal probe for the people.

It takes a large state to build tyranny, whether its strings are pulled by a bunch of ideological loons, or by runaway corporate interests.

I guess that depends on how one defines large. For example few people would argue against Saddam Hussein being a tyrant, but neither his kingdom nor his government were that large. Now, if you were to instead define large in terms of what fraction of the country's wealth is consumed by the state, then I would certainly agree that his state was enormous. And indeed pretty much every highly militarized state in recent history could be qualified as large in that way.

Google's off the reservation (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47534079)

They can't do everything, which is going to lead them to doing a lot of things suckily.

How do they actually make money to keep those bazillions of servers running? Does anyone ever actually click on those ads?

Sounds like something someone should do (2)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47534091)

As someone with a science background, I always find it shocking how much random guesswork goes on in medicine. You'd think that we could take a person in, take a bunch of different samples for analysis, test their DNA, run a full body scan, and just find anything that wasn't working the way it should. Ideally, I think our goal should be to be able to find illness even when the patient doesn't know it's there.

It'd be great, for example, if you could go to the doctor and get a battery of tests, and have him say, "Hey, so you've been feeling a bit tired recently, right?"

The patient says, "Yeah, I guess I haven't been sleeping well, and..."

And the doctor interrupts, "Nope. I'm pretty sure the problem is that you haven't been eating enough [whatever]. It's causing too much of [something] in your system, which is causing you to be lethargic."

I would imagine that part of the problem is that you can't establish what constitutes a problematic variance from "normal" until you establish what is an acceptable variance from "normal". You can't establish what constitutes an acceptable variance from "normal" until you have some baseline of "normal".

Re:Sounds like something someone should do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534187)

What you're asking for is pretty much impossible. We've plucked all the low-hanging medical fruit.
We're talking about massively complex systems with chaotic nonlinear relationships between vast numbers of variables.
There isn't one single reason you feel tired, nor any single--nor necessarily any--solution.

Re:Sounds like something someone should do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534341)

What you're asking for is pretty much impossible. We've plucked all the low-hanging medical fruit.
We're talking about massively complex systems with chaotic nonlinear relationships between vast numbers of variables.
There isn't one single reason you feel tired, nor any single--nor necessarily any--solution.

Yes, agreed that it's damn complex and we're a long way off from that vision. At the same time we're nowhere near the point
where we should just throw in the towel. There's still a lot of fruit to be plucked by scaling up these types of studies. Numbers
of individuals for whom we have both genetic data and good phenotypic data have been paultry compared to what they could be.
And the nature and comprehensiveness of that genetic data will only get better. Yes, I suspect we will ultimately hit something of a wall of intractable complexity and diminishing returns at some point. But you only need to look at the rate of publications in this area to know that we're no where near that wall as yet.

Re:Sounds like something someone should do (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47534207)

I would certainly be (a lot) happier if medicine actually worked that way; but are there any examples of our successfully reverse-engineering a system as complex as we are robustly enough to make those sorts of determinations? I may be forgetting, or ignorant of, something; but I can't think of any aspect of science where we've taken on a problem of that scale without a whole lot of hacks, constants defined to make the numbers work out, simplifications, or just plain acknowledgement that we have the math to describe the problem but it is not computationally tractable for most real world targets.

Re:Sounds like something someone should do (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47534335)

but are there any examples of our successfully reverse-engineering a system as complex as we are robustly enough to make those sorts of determinations?

I don't know if there is a system as complex as we are, so you're right, it's going to be difficult. On the plus side, we've already been working on the project for a few thousand years, and we started making some real progress in the last hundred years or so.

So... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47534167)

Does the baseline healthy human enjoy targeted advertising, or does he really enjoy targeted advertising and find it to be an enriching aspect of his modern lifestyle?

Data won't be shared with insurance companies... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#47534173)

... that is, unil the insurance companies get another fantastic handout from the federal government, this time requiring google to release the information to them so that they can raise your rates. Google has no power in comparison to the insurance industry.

Because nobody reads TFA (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 4 months ago | (#47534217)

Baseline will be monitored by institutional review boards, which oversee all medical research involving humans. Once the full study gets going, boards run by the medical schools at Duke University and Stanford University will control how the information is used.

Now feel free to laugh derisively at the idiots who didn't read TFA and immediately started screeching about Google invading their privacy.

Re:Because nobody reads TFA (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 4 months ago | (#47534513)

Yah they are going to do this with out thinking of making money for the shareholders some how. Where were you on July 24 2014 when corporations gave up a small change of profit to help out man kind.

Healthy humans = better workers = better pay = more money to spend.

Re:Because nobody reads TFA (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 4 months ago | (#47534697)

Profit doesn't mean that your privacy has been invaded.

Patents on genetic tests [nature.com] already exist. This program is a way of developing more tests that can be patented and profited from.

That said, my opinion is that allowing patents on human genes was a bad idea that should have never been allowed to happen, but that's an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with privacy.

Outliers? (1)

extremescholar (714216) | about 4 months ago | (#47534255)

Are they going to really look at the outliers? I'm 6'6" (almost 2.0M) tall. I personally think that some of the health metrics use "average" people and assume linearity for weight, calorie consumption, etc. We need to check the extremely tall, the extremely short as well as weight variations in a large sample.

Re:Outliers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534453)

Your molecules are the same as everyones. Molecular testing doesn't change with height.

In my case, why not? (1)

judoguy (534886) | about 4 months ago | (#47534275)

In a sensible health insurance market, I might very well want to have insurance companies have my personal health data.

I'm 61 and in perfect health. Literally, perfect health. Superb lipid profile, low blood sugar, not over weight, no diseases, never smoked, don't drink, athlete level blood pressure, etc. I work my ass off keeping this way.

I WANT the damn insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of "pre existing conditions". Note that the term "pre existing conditions" is an insurance industry term, nothing to do with health care.

I damn sure don't want anyone selling any information about me and I'm sure Google will, but as I said, in an ideal world, I'd give it to the parasitic insurance industry.

No, scratch the above. In a ideal world, I wouldn't have to worry about health insurance at all. I only need some now I order to set up an HSA. And I only want to set up an HSA in order to save some money in taxes. In an ideal world, I'd just pay for my own health care and not have to screw around with government corruption and confiscatory taxes in the first place.

Um... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 4 months ago | (#47534375)

According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes.

I work in the medical field. Both clinical and research. I've seen what "anonymous patient" data looks like. While it can be done correctly, it almost never is. When I say almost never, I mean under 5% of the time; and that's being generous.

The DICOM data generated by most advanced imaging scanners (MRI, CT. etc) is pretty big. To make matters worse, every vendor (Philips, GE, Siemens, etc) uses more than just the standard fields (tags) to store the unique patient identifiers. They all also use proprietary or what are sometimes referred to as "shadow" or "private" tags. These tags are different for every vendor and are used in different ways. To make matters worse, these tags can change depending on the model, firmware version or even the scanning sequence used.

If you just remove just the standard patient identifying tags, you could very well miss that they were all duplicated in the private tags. If you simply remove all of the private tags, you may end up removing the very data that is needed to make sense of the images themselves. Such as how many mm a pixel is, or the volume of a voxel. This all needs to be done for every image in the exam and there can be thousands to tens of thousands of them. Most programs used to de-identify the exam either miss all of the private tags, or remove too much data and render the exams useless. So patient identifiers are left in most exams and we just try to ignore this.

The big question is, is how will a company like Google treat this unfortunate situation? Most in the medical field are there because of their compassion for their patients and do research for the betterment of the general population. What happens when executive types realize they have this kind of data?

Data won't be shared with insurance companies (1)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#47534561)

Unless a fat sack of cash or some sort of swanky government hand-out comes their way...

And then, what then? We have another artificial "universal" measure for determining what "healthy" is? Like BMI supposedly is for weight measurement?

no one here apply for life insurance? (1)

vpness (921181) | about 4 months ago | (#47534897)

what a lot of posters strike me as missing, is that the DEFINITION OF WHATS HEALTHY IS ALREADY MADE, and when you apply for life insurance you AGREE TO SHARE ALL DR RECORDS AND GET RETESTED. So unless most of you just take the "cover your credit card debt and handle the funeral services" health insurance your company offers, then you've already crossed the 'share lots of specific health info, tied specifically to you' threshold. As someone who's off the bell curve in terms of body height, I'd welcome a more scientific and data centric definition of stuff like BMI. what ID challenge the crypto-smart folks on /. , is to come up with a way - or promote if it's already done - to create a way to guarantee authenticity of that the data is as a patient intended to contribute, whilst cryptographically ensure that the contributor is obsfucated.

we need single payer health care in the usa and no (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#47534935)

we need single payer health care in the usa and not let the GOP take us back to the old system where they will use tech like this to get out of having to pay for just about anything.

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534953)

Are they going to try to patent it like that one company did with the breast cancer gene they isolated, which then left doctors unable to treat affected people on the grounds of copyright infringement?

Sorry sir, you'll have to come with us to the incinerator. It seems you were born with ideal genetic without first licensing it from us.

Dystopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47534957)

There are ample works of fiction warning us concerning improving the human condition. We refuse to learn because it would interfere with out erotic and political pursuits of which the profit motive is a part.

Incompletely worked-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535565)

Legend has it that a group of Columbia medical school students was asked to define the condition of "health." One answered, "Incompletely worked-up."

anonymous DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47535711)

Wait, wasnt DNA this thing that is unique with every person except for monozygotic twins and can not be anonymized, because well.... it is you, even if you relocate or change your phone number?

Thats an interesting process of anonymization.

easy enough (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 4 months ago | (#47536011)

Use an algorithm to determine if they stick to the 3 major food groups, caffeine, nicotine, and ibuprofen. Parse through their social media interactions to make sure they never get angry because they have killed all of their enemies. And, bot through their pr0n accounts to make sure they have sex regularly.

Logan's Run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47536099)

And once they determine what defines a 'standard healthy human' they can start the programs to get rid of the rest of us...

(I think I already read about this in history class)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?