http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/10/27/federal-privacy-regulation-and-the-financially-troubled-dtc-genomics-company/

Federal Privacy Regulation and the Financially Troubled DTC Genomics Company

Last month, the Genomics Law Report prepared a three-part series entitled What Happens if a DTC Genomics Company Goes Belly Up?  The series, which was originally published on Genetic Future (see Parts 1, 2 and 3), reviewed the privacy policies of several genomics companies to determine whether they prohibit the transfer of private data to third parties. We also discussed the fact that a bankruptcy court may approve such a transfer notwithstanding a policy to the contrary. In this post, we examine whether federal regulations may restrict the dissemination of private genomic data—including the new rules proposed earlier this month under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.

1. Is DTC Getting HIPAA? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the most prominent federal regulation governing the privacy of medical records, established the Privacy Rule to provide national standards for protected medical records. HIPAA's Privacy Rule currently applies only to "covered entities" and business associates of covered entities. A covered entity is a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider. Since a company providing genomic sequencing services is not a health plan or a health care clearinghouse, HIPAA will apply only if such a company is determined to be a health care provider or a business associate of a covered entity.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics companies are not likely to be considered business associates of HIPAA covered entities. HIPAA defines a business associate as a person or organization that, on behalf of a covered entity, performs an activity involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or otherwise performs services for a covered entity where the covered entity provides such health information to the business associate. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) expanded the definition of business associate for purposes of the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule to include

• entities providing data transmission of protected health information to covered entities (or such entity's business associate) and requiring access on a routine basis to such information, and
• vendors contracting with a covered entity to allow the covered entity to offer personal health records to its patients.

DTC genomics companies typically do not act on behalf of a covered entity, nor do they provide services to covered entities. Rather, as the DTC name suggests, companies such as 23andMe provide services directly to the consumer. However, this is not always the case. For example, California-based Navigenics, commonly referred to as a DTC genomics company, has announced a number of partnerships with healthcare clinics through which it offers its genotyping services to the clinic for use in developing personalized diagnostic, management and treatment strategies for patients. Just last week, Navigenics announced a partnership with Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center in Boston to familiarize practicing physicians with its DTC offerings, among other goals. Looking at Navigenics' list of collaborators reveals a number of relationships where Navigenics appears to be performing services (genotyping and risk prediction) and providing identifiable health information (the genotyping results) to health care providers. Whether or not a particular DTC genomics company qualifies as a business associate depends on the particulars of the services it offers, particularly those that it makes available directly to health care providers; particulars which are subject to change at a moment's notice in this rapidly evolving field.

Moreover, it is conceivable that a DTC genomics company could be considered a health care provider itself. Although we are not aware of any regulative body that has found a DTC genomics company to be covered by HIPAA (as a health care provider or otherwise), the term "health care" is defined broadly under HIPAA regulations:

Health care means care, services, or supplies related to the health of an individual. Health care includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care, and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition, or functional status, of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body….

If a DTC genomics company provides diagnostic or analytical information to a customer in connection with the customer's genomic sequence, it may be considered to be offering "diagnostic care" or "counseling with respect to the physical or mental condition of an individual"—and thus, to be a health care provider subject to the HIPAA regulations. Existing DTC providers do offer substantial information that could fall into those categories, including relative risk and lifetime risk calculations for serious diseases (23andMe's testing service, for instance, includes "carrier reports" for 32 conditions including several cancers, Parkinson's Disease and diabetes) and the determination of carrier status for alleles with reproductive implications. In addition, other companies such as Navigenics, provide access to board-certified genetic counselors to assist customers in interpreting their results.

The provision of clinical diagnostic information and genetic counseling, even when delivered over a website rather than in a doctor's office, may constitute the provision of health care. In recent weeks the Genomics Law Report has focused on the recurring calls for standards that would have the effect of blurring the distinction between direct-to-consumer genetic testing and the clinical practice of medicine (also see here, here, here and here). One potential effect of confusing the clinical/non-clinical divide in the DTC setting would likely be to bring DTC service providers unambiguously under the purview of HIPAA as a health care provider. As described below, however, despite the increasingly clinical nature of the services offered by DTC providers, there does not appear to be much enthusiasm for subjecting genomics companies to HIPAA or to other clinical regulations.

2. Why Does HIPAA Matter? Even if a DTC genomics company is deemed to provide a level of service sufficient to make it a covered entity under HIPAA, it may still disclose confidential protected health information (such as a customer's genetic or genomic results) for the purpose of carrying out "health care operations." Health care operations are broadly defined in HIPAA Section 164.501 to include business management and general administrative activities. Specifically disclosure is permitted relating to the "sale, transfer, merger or consolidation of all or a part of the covered entity with another covered entity, or an entity that following such activity will become a covered entity and due diligence related to such activity." Among the amendments to HIPAA contained in the ARRA is a specific prohibition on the sale of protected health information, except for the sale of information in connection with the sale, transfer or consolidation of the covered entity. Therefore, even when HIPAA applies, patient or customer authorization is not required for disclosure of protected health information in the sale of the company's assets.

HIPAA does not specifically address the bankruptcy of a covered entity; however, it seems that the sale or transfer exception would likely apply. A liquidation in bankruptcy requires the sale of the debtor's assets. As long as the protected information is transferred to another covered entity in connection with a sale of the assets, presumably individual authorization from the DTC genomics company's customers would not be required.

For the moment, it does not appear that HIPAA regulations are restricting much if any of the activity currently taking place in the DTC genomics space. However, as a host of factors, including both internal and external pressures, continue to drive many DTC genomics companies closer and closer to activities indistinguishable from the clinical practice of medicine, at least some DTC companies may soon find themselves subject to HIPAA's regulations. The implications of HIPAA coverage for DTC genomics companies is the subject for another post, but in the limited case of a bankruptcy scenario, even HIPAA coverage would not appear to prohibit a DTC genomics company from transferring its customers' genomic information.

3. DTC Escapes Stimulus Bill Unscathed? Part of the Stimulus Bill enacted this past spring directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to conduct a study on privacy, security, and breach-notification requirements for vendors of personal health records (PHRs) and related entities that are not subject to HIPAA. In the meantime, the Act required the FTC to issue a rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached.

The FTC issued a proposed notification rule (pdf) in April 2009, applying to PHR vendors, PHR-related entities, and third party service providers. All three categories, however, are restricted to firms that handle personal health information.

Upon publication of the proposed rule, the FTC solicited comments from the public. One of the comments was from a nonprofit health privacy watchdog group, Patient Privacy Rights, on behalf of the Coalition for Patient Privacy (a group that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Association for People with Disabilities). The Patient Privacy Rights comment (pdf) objected to the limitation of the proposed rule to "the organization and sharing of personal health records," because the definition of personal health records did not explicitly include genetic or genomic information. As the group explained:

Personal genomics companies such as 23andMe, Navigenics, Knome, and deCODE offer individual genetic testing that can provide customers with novel health services—from determining the likelihood of contracting diabetes, to identifying ancestral roots. Such companies rely on (HIPAA-compliant) labs to analyze patient DNA, which they receive directly, analyze, and store online for access by the patient.

A patient whose genetic information is leaked, stolen, or disclosed could clearly suffer harm as great as that associated with any other PHR health data, as recognized by the various state and federal laws around genetic privacy. The Commission should accordingly determine that personal genomics companies constitute [Personal Health Record] related entities insofar as they `access[] information in a personal health record' or `offer[] or maintain[] a personal health record.'

However, when the final notification rule (pdf) was published in August of this year, the FTC had declined to modify the rule as requested by Patient Privacy Rights. The Commission's final rule contains no mention of genetic data or genomics companies.

While we will have to wait for the completion of the joint HHS/FTC study in February 2010 to see whether it explicitly covers genomics companies in any of its privacy or security regulations, the FTC's security breach rule suggests that it is unlikely that any such regulations will be immediately forthcoming.

Accordingly, the genomic information supplied by DTC companies is likely to be covered by the FTC's regulations only to the extent such information constitutes personal health information (thus making a genomics company a firm that handles PHI and subject to the regulations.) This is where GINA comes in.

4. GINA and the Privacy Rule: Did Anything Really Change? The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) requires that the HHS Secretary revise the HIPAA Privacy Rule to make clear that "[g]enetic information shall be treated as health information." Although GINA required that HHS issue implementing regulations not later than May 2009, it wasn't until this month that HHS' Office of Civil Rights issued its proposed rules (pdf). The background discussion of the proposed rule points out, however, that although the term "health information" would be amended "to explicitly provide that such term includes genetic information," that does not mean that all disclosures of genetic information would necessarily be protected under HIPAA's Privacy Rule:

We note, however, that as before, genetic information, while health information, is only covered by the Privacy Rule to the extent that it meets the definition of "protected health information." That is, the genetic information must be individually identifiable and maintained by a HIPAA covered entity (or business associate of a covered entity) (and not otherwise fall within one of the exceptions to the definition).

Thus, although GINA amended the Privacy Rule to cover genetic information, the type of entities covered by the Privacy Rule did not change: it still only applies to HIPAA's "covered entities." And so we have come full circle: the key question remains whether DTC Genomics companies are considered to be covered entities, either as health care providers or as business associates of health care providers. While that question remains unsettled, the tone of the note suggests that HHS is not actively seeking ways to apply its regulations to genomics companies.

5. What Does It All Mean? As discussed above, the trend toward clinical activity on the part of many DTC genomics companies could ultimately bring them within the ambit of HIPAA and its Privacy Rule. However, at present it does not appear that there is any federal regulation—including HIPAA—that clearly restricts the transfer of customers' information as part of a sale of assets by a troubled DTC genomics company.

As we concluded last time, the true test for the handling of individuals' genetic and genomic information collected by DTC companies will be the first actual bankruptcy. Until then it will remain extremely difficult to predict how regulators and bankruptcy courts will address such a scenario, and the most practical advice at this time, for existing and potential customers, continues to be to understand the terms and conditions offered by each individual DTC genomics company with respect to their customers' information—and to recognize that, in bankruptcy, genomic data may be transferred to a similar company without regard to those terms and conditions..

As for the DTC companies themselves, the possibility that they may be subjected to regulation under HIPAA and the Privacy Rule—as well as, potentially, a host of other regulations and sources of liability associated with the provision of health care—has implications far beyond the bankruptcy scenario. In the coming weeks the Genomics Law Report will begin to investigate what it might mean for DTC genomics companies if the blurry line between clinical and non-clinical activity in the DTC space finally resolves itself, with the DTC companies on the clinical side of that line.

Privacy & Ownership of an Individual's Personal Genetic Information

This commentary in the Genomics Law Report's ongoing series What ELSI is New? is contributed by Jennifer Sweeney, Knome, Inc.

As personal genetic information becomes increasingly accessible and affordable, the ownership and privacy of such data will emerge as a central issue in genomics. Is personal genetic information, stored within a centralized database where a third-party gatekeeper determines who has access, really still private? Who owns such data? Should the individual have control over how, when and where their information is used? In such cases, it certainly seems the individual may have forfeited ownership and rights to control access to their own data.

Many of today's genomics companies are compiling vast databases of genetic data, phenotype information and medical histories obtained from their clients. Two important characteristics of genetic information make issues of privacy and ownership especially important – the durability of such data and its relevance to family members. An individual's genetic information does not change over time, so once it is disclosed there is no reclaiming it. Further, we share substantial portions of our genetics with family members – choosing to grant access to our own data impacts present and future family members without their consent.

As yet, industry and regulators have placed little focus on ownership and privacy concerns. GINA addresses discrimination once an employer or insurer already has access but is silent on who actually owns the genetic information. For the most part HIPAA's privacy protections do not apply because DTC genomics companies are not "covered entities" under the privacy rule. Corporations, namely DTC genomics companies, have become the default guardian of personal genetic information.

Surely we all benefit from individuals electing to share their genetic information with others – it is the basis for how future genetic discoveries will be made. However, granting unfettered access or forfeiting ownership of inherently private, personal genetic information exposes an individual in ways not yet fully understood. Careful consideration should be given to the best ways to ensure genetic information remains private, owned and controlled by the individual.

• Andro HSU, 23andMe – How will medicine and its regulation adapt to the information age?
• Archon X Prize for Genomics – [Forthcoming]
• Blaine Bettinger, Bond, Schoeneck & King / the Genetic Genealogist - Education, Not Regulation, Will Benefit Consumers of Recreational Genetics
• Ruth Chadwick, Cardiff Law School – [Forthcoming]
• Eric Juengst, Case Western Reserve University Center for Genetic Research Ethics and Law – [Forthcoming]
• Michelle McGowan, Case Western Reserve University Center for Genetic Research Ethics and Law – Personalized Genomic Medicine and Health Care Justice
• Alan E. Dow, Complete Genomics – Genetic Exceptionalism and the Precautionary Principle
• Jen S. McCabe, Contagion Health – [Forthcoming]
• Thinh Nguyen, Creative Commons Counsel for Science Commons - The Hidden Legal Barriers to Scientific Research
• Misha Angrist, Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy - Dear Dr. Board-Certified Clinical Geneticist
• Susanne Haga, Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy – [Forthcoming]
• Robert Cook-Deegan, Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy – The balance of experiment and theory is shifting in genomics; this matters for ELSI
• Esther Dyson, EDVenture Holdings - How will we handle the capability and responsibility of creating human life to spec?
• David Ewing Duncan, Experimental Man – [Forthcoming]
• Matthew Herper, Forbes - The Direct to Consumer Disconnect: Why the genomics community is going to have trouble talking to patients and doctors alike
• Sharon Terry, Genetic Alliance - Informed Health Decision-Making through a Registry for Genetic Tests
• Stephanie Devaney, Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, and Gail Javitt, Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University and Sidley Austin LLP - [Forthcoming]
• David Dooling, The Genome Center at Washington University - Personalized medicine, leave U.S. behind
• George Church, Harvard Medical School – [Forthcoming]
• Patrice Milos, Helicos BioSciences – [Forthcoming]
• Steven Murphy, Helix Health – [Forthcoming]
• Chris Gunter, HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology - We must revolutionize our communication of science to non-scientists
• Mostafa Ronaghi, Illumina – [Forthcoming]
• Barbara Prainsack, King's College London – [Forthcoming]
• Jennifer Sweeney, Knome – [Forthcoming]
• Derya Unutmaz, Oral Alpan & Ekaterina Vasileva, Longenics – [Forthcoming]
• Catherine McCarty, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation – To Share or Not to Share: That is the Question.
• Felix Frueh, Medco Health Solutions – [Forthcoming]
• Board of Directors, National Society of Genetic Counselors – Potential increased health disparities related to genomic medicine
• Jonathan Lord, Navigenics – We need to work together to expand access to genetic testing
• Zoe McDougall & Gavin Harper, Oxford Nanopore - The Risk of Communicating Risk
• Pathway Genomics – [Forthcoming]
• Ting Wu & Dana Waring Bateman, Personal Genetics Education Project, Harvard Medical School – The next generation is ……. in high school.
• Jason Bobe, The Personal Genome Project – [Forthcoming]
• Caroline Wright & Alison Hall, PHG Foundation – [Forthcoming]
• Austin Alexander, Siftgen, Inc. – [Forthcoming]
• Mike Cariaso, SNPedia – [Forthcoming]
• Hank Greely, Stanford Law School - How will we handle the rapidly approaching flood of genomic information on individual patients and consumers?
• David Gurwitz, Tel-Aviv University - Personal genomics and genetic information nondiscrimination legislation: Are we ready?
• Harry Zanville, Thomas Jefferson School of Law – [Forthcoming]
• Mark Henderson, The Times of London – Finding The Proper Place for Genetics in Insurance
• Katherine Payne, The University of Manchester - Personalized Medicine: what is the added value to healthcare systems?
• Allie Janson, University Health Network/Mount Sinai Hospital's Fred A. Litwin Family Centre in Genetic Medicine and DNA Exchange - Medical vs. "Recreational" Genomics: Drawing a Line in the Sand
• Bertalan Mesko, Webicina.com – Personalized Medicine in the Web 2.0 Era
• Daniel MacArthur, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute – [Forthcoming]

Until now, we have been able to create humans but not to design them. We know that in many cultures, female infanticide is practiced for the purpose of having a son who can care for the parents in their old age. That practice is frowned upon by most.

But it gets creepier. We already have something of a taboo against creating humans for a purpose other than their own existence. That was behind the fascination with Jon Benet Ramsay, the little murdered girl who seemed to exist more for her mother's gratification than for her own. A recent movie, "My Sister's Keeper," posited a girl who had been conceived in vitro to provide tissues and body parts for an ailing sister (but the movie punted this question in the end). Like so many modern crimes, the issues revolves less around objective facts than around intent and responsibility….

We can look to euthanasia for some parallels and differences. Euthanasia may look like pain relief – or pain relief may look like euthanasia. Doctors are often involved and can properly guide people in making the right choices. In the end, individuals should have the right to control their own life and death. That choice is not available to the individual at the beginning of life; therefore, would-be parents need to be encouraged to be clear about their own motivations. This is not a new issue, but it becomes a bigger one when parents can choose not merely to have a child, but what kind of child to have. Parents have always had to resist the temptation to control their children's lives. Now they have an even greater ability to do so – and the burden of living with their choices.

So, I think it would be reasonable to have a law against creating a person for any other reason than that person's own existence. The point of the law is certainly enforcement, but it's also to have a clear statement of what is acceptable and what is not. A person who exists primarily for another's benefit is a slave, and we condemn and outlaw that – even though such exploitative relationships certainly exist and may look consensual from the outside.

Laws are an expression of society's norms, and this norm of non-exploitation deserves clear affirmation.

Selina,
There is a good explanation for brown-coated Yorkies on Wikipedia.
Here is the site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Yorkshire_Terrier

--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, "Selina Kim Vickerman-Prince" <selinakp@...>
wrote:
>
> What causes some Yorkshire Terriers to have brown coats?
>
> Selina Kim Vickerman-Prince
> South Africa
> selinakp@...
> +27 79 505 4836
>

Nothing and this person was not authorized to post. Nor did they have a
memembership in this group.
--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, "Selina Kim Vickerman-Prince" <selinakp@...>
wrote:
>
> Do these photos have anything to do with DNA Testing?
> These days I am wary of opening links.
> Selina
> South Africa
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: matchejphfriends
> Date: 2009/10/23 01:07:26 PM
> To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [DNA-Testing] Click here to check out my new photos!
>
> Click here to check out my new photos!
> http://coolsrider.zoomshare.com/files/newfriend.htm
>

Very interesting and very relevant to just about anyone with Northern European
ancestry, since most of us have some Nordic ancestry.

--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, John Scharf <johnlloydscharf@...> wrote:
>
> NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) â€" A new study of ancient DNA suggests modern-day
Scandinavians do not belong to an unbroken line linked to ancient
hunter-gatherers, but instead are likely descendents of a group that arrived in
the region with the advent of agriculture.
>  
> Researchers from Sweden, Denmark, and the UK assessed genetic sequences from
4,000 to 5,500-year-old human remains found in Sweden and a neighboring island.
The samples represent individuals from two groups: one that had a hunter-gather
lifestyle and another that was agricultural. The research, which appeared online
yesterday in Current Biology, suggests individuals living in Scandinavia today
are more closely related to the immigrant agricultural group than to the
hunter-gather group.
>  
> "The hunter-gatherers who inhabited Scandinavia more than 4,000 years ago had
a different gene pool than ours," co-senior author Anders Götherström, an
evolutionary biologist at Sweden's Uppsala University, said in a statement.
>  
> Although much of northern Europe had moved from a foraging, hunter-gather
lifestyle to a more agricultural lifestyle by around 6,700 years ago, the
researchers explained, this transition was slower in Scandinavia, where
hunter-gather groups existed until around 4,000 years ago.
>  
> Past research suggests a group known as the Funnel Beaker Cultural
(Trichterbecher Kultur), or TRB, complex arrived in Scandinavia roughly 6,000
years ago, apparently co-existing with foragers â€" including those in the
Pitted Ware Culture, or PWC, the last known hunter-gatherers in the region â€"
for at least 1,000 years.
> But the origin of the hunter-gather PWC group and their relationship to
modern-day Scandinavians, if any, is poorly understood. Because the oldest
archeological evidence for the PWC group, found in coastal parts of Sweden and
the nearby Baltic islands, is from around 5,300 years ago, some suspect they
arrived after the agricultural TRB group. Others have speculated that the PWC
were descendents of older hunter-gatherer groups or were individuals from TRB
group who reverted to a hunter-gather lifestyle.
>  
> "The driving force behind the transition from a foraging to a farming
lifestyle in prehistoric Europe (Neolithization) has been debated for more than
a century," Götherström and his co-authors wrote. "Of particular interest is
whether population replacement or cultural exchange was responsible."
>  
> To explore this further, the researchers used a Roche Genome Sequencer FLX to
sequence 316 base pairs of ancient mitochondrial DNA from 22 Stone Age
skeletons. They also evaluated the total amount of human DNA in each sample with
quantitative real-time PCR.
>  
> Three of the samples are 4,500 to 5,500-year-old skeletal remains from TRB
individuals found in Gökhem, Sweden, and the other 19 are 4,000 to
4,800-year-old samples collected on the Baltic island of Gotland, representing
PWC individuals.
>  
> The team's subsequent analyses of the mtDNA showed that individuals from the
hunter-gatherer PWC belong to mitochondrial haplogroups rarely detected in
modern-day Scandinavians. Instead, the genetic patterns in PWC samples more
closely resemble those found today in the eastern Baltic areas, such as Latvia
and Lithuania, suggesting the PWC may have been ancestral to these populations
instead.
>  
> "[T]he data analyses are consistent with a view that the eastern Baltic area
remained a genetic refugia for some of the European hunter-gatherer
populations," the authors noted. "Although the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was
culturally replaced here, as in Scandinavia, the populations of the eastern
Baltic area may have kept a certain level of population continuity."
>  
> While they did not rule out the possibility that the PWC descended from
another hunter-gather group in northern Europe, the team concluded that it's
very unlikely, based on the evidence so far, that there was a continuous lineage
from the PWC and other hunter-gatherer populations to the populations in
Scandinavia today. Rather, they say, agricultural groups seem to have migrated
into the area and replaced the existing populations.
>  
> "[S]ome form of migration to Scandinavia took place, probably at the onset of
the agricultural Stone Age," co-author Petra Molnar, a researcher at Stockholm
University's Osteoarchaeological Research Laboratory, said in a statement. "The
extent of this migration is as of yet impossible to determine."
>

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----- Original Message -----

From: Duane Byron Carlson

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:27 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

ARVINA,Thanks for the advice. Do you know of a way to find documented descendants who would be recieptive to a DNA request?  Junior and his immedate children are buried at the Hermitage. I was told that  most other decendents moved on to California by the attendents at the Hermitage. Any help appreciated.

Best regards,

Duane

DBCarlson@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:41 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Mr. Carlson,

 

Does he have any documented descendants?  If he does, then dna testing would be the route to go.  It worked for descendants of Thomas Jefferson.

 

Arvina

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Duane Byron Carlson

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Arvina, No, but I am interested in making contact with a decendent of Andrew Jackson Junior. Family lore is that we are related, but if that is true my great grandmother is undocumented. Attendents at the Hermitage tell us that Junior was Rachels nephew and that he was a "Rounder" giving some credence to our family story.

 

All help/leads appreciated.

Danke mSchoen/Tack sa Myket

 

Duane Byron Carlson

DBCarlson@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:41 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Mr. Carlson,

 

Does he have any documented descendants?  If he does, then dna testing would be the route to go.  It worked for descendants of Thomas Jefferson.

 

Arvina

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Duane Byron Carlson

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Arvina, No, but I am interested in making contact with a decendent of Andrew Jackson Junior. Family lore is that we are related, but if that is true my great grandmother is undocumented. Attendents at the Hermitage tell us that Junior was Rachels nephew and that he was a "Rounder" giving some credence to our family story.

 

All help/leads appreciated.

Danke mSchoen/Tack sa Myket

 

Duane Byron Carlson

DBCarlson@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

----- Original Message -----

From: Duane Byron Carlson

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Arvina, No, but I am interested in making contact with a decendent of Andrew Jackson Junior. Family lore is that we are related, but if that is true my great grandmother is undocumented. Attendents at the Hermitage tell us that Junior was Rachels nephew and that he was a "Rounder" giving some credence to our family story.

 

All help/leads appreciated.

Danke mSchoen/Tack sa Myket

 

Duane Byron Carlson

DBCarlson@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

----- Original Message -----

From: John Lloyd Scharf

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:09 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Re: Unsolicited e-mail

 

It was not allowed by me and I am the owner. Thanks for reporting it,
though, Arvina. I was hoping it would not generate too much resentment
and just deleted it from the archives.
--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, "Marvin Collins" <mcollins@...>
wrote:
>
> I got it and immediately deleted it. JC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arvina Copeland
> To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:01 PM
> Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail
>
>
>
> Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from
matchejphfriends? I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed
spam.
>
> Arvina
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

It was not allowed by me and I am the owner. Thanks for reporting it,
though, Arvina. I was hoping it would not generate too much resentment
and just deleted it from the archives.
--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, "Marvin Collins" <mcollins@...>
wrote:
>
> I got it and immediately deleted it. JC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arvina Copeland
> To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:01 PM
> Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail
>
>
>
> Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from
matchejphfriends? I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed
spam.
>
> Arvina
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvina Copeland

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:01 PM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Unsolicited e-mail

 

Did anyone else get this unsolicited e-mail that I did, from matchejphfriends?  I forwarded it to my e-mail service provider as missed spam.

 

Arvina

----- Original Message -----

From: John Lloyd Scharf

To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:49 AM

Subject: [DNA-Testing] Re: novice y33 dna question

 

You are correct. Most NA surnames have not survived, but of all of them,
that is the surname, Sizemore, with the most Cherokee offspring.
--- In DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com, "Arvina Copeland"
<ArvinaCopeland@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The two known(by me) Native American male ancestors that I have are a
convoluted tangle. My g-g-g grandmother, Winnie Sizemore Bowling,
daughter of "George All" Sizemore, was part Native American. All proven
male descendants of George that have been y-dna tested have shown Native
American ancestry. I am descended from his daughter through her oldest
son, in a direct male line descent, until it comes to me. I am female.
My other ancestor, Frank Bentley(Frances) was supposedly 1/2(Cherokee)
from Georgia. His father was the Native American. His mother was not. I
descend from him in a direct female line of descent, his daughter, Mary
Bentley, my mother Eula Root, Me. I did not know of a test that would
show either of the two in my genetic testing, although I have the
physical characteristics as indicators of my heritage. There were very
likely more additions to my stock of Native American ancestry that the
two that I've mentioned because of the very early arrival time of my
ancestors. I am open to test suggestions as I only have a surface
knowledge of the various tests.
>
> Arvina
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Scharf
> To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] novice y33 dna question
>
>
>
>
> Arvina, you do not have any yDNA. Your father, however, passed you an
X chromosome. I have had my X chromome tested as well as my Y. If you
had your mother's X chromosomes and your X chromosome tested, you could
isolate which X chromosome your father passed to you.
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------\
------
> From: Arvina Copeland ArvinaCopeland@...
> To: DNA-Testing@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 8:13:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA-Testing] novice y33 dna question
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'm no expert, but I know for sure from a twist in my own ancestry. I
have Native American ancestry from a male Native American. From that
male to his daughter is the next step. From there on down, she does not
pass it on in her mtdna. And of course, my y-dna(paternal line) only has
the dna passed down from father to son to son and that male Native
American is not in his line of ancestry. He could be being truthful with
both tales. Maybe early on he identified with a maternal line of Native
American ancestry. Later on he may have identified with his paternal
line of ancestry.
>
> Arvina
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rwe38133
> To: DNA-Testing@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:50 PM
> Subject: [DNA-Testing] novice y33 dna question
>
>
>
> I got my cousin to do an ancestry.com yDNA test for me.
> Our great grandfather is somewhat of a mystery to us.
>
> Our great grandfather, when younger, claimed to be born in California
and of Native American nationality, but later in life changed his name
and claimed to have been born in the Yucatan Penisula and his parent
being from Spain. We do know he spoke fluent Spanish.
> My male cousin is the direct line of male to male from our great
grandfather.
>
> Ok, his results came back as being in the E1b1b. I don't know if
posting his markers will make a differece, but I will post them at the
end.
> My question is this. Does this basically rule out his earlier claim of
American Indian and make his later statements more close to fact.
>
> Thank you,
> Rick
> rwe38133
>
> 393/13, 19/13, 391/10, 439/12, 389-1/13, 389-2/31, 388/12, 390/23,
426/11, 385a/16, 385b/17, 392/11
>