News
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — A genetic testing company is being investigated after it was scrutinized in a New York Times article demonstrating that prenatal tests for a set of rare genetic disorders yield about 85 percent false positives.

Following the report on microdeletion false positives, test maker Natera’s stock dropped “as much as 3.5%,” thereby “injuring investors,” according to Frank R. Cruz’s legal practice, which announced shortly afterward that it is investigating Natera on behalf of investors “concerning possible violations of federal securities laws.”

The Securities Act of 1933 is designed in large part to “prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.”

On January 1, along with a general report of astronomically high false positives for genetic microdeletion disorders, The New York Times also indicated that a study from Natera suggested there were three times as many false positives as actual detected cases of DiGeorge Syndrome, contrary to Natera’s stated claim that the number of false positives were equal to actual cases.

The average rate of 85 percent false positives for microdeletion genetic disorders was the outcome of a combination of studies from several different diagnostic labs as well as several studies involving Natera, its investors, and its consultants.

Natera’s false positives have potentially had massive impact. According to the company, it performed more than 400,000 screenings “for one microdeletion” in 2020, “the equivalent of testing roughly 10 percent of pregnant women in America,” the Times noted.

Most notably, the false positives have led to planned and actual abortions: The Times reported that several women admitted to having “tentatively” planned abortions before follow-up testing confirmed healthy babies without disabilities.

The Times noted how one geneticist said that one woman had already had her baby killed in an abortion by the time a follow-up test revealed her baby was in fact healthy. The Boston Globe quoted a doctor describing three abortions “following unconfirmed positive results.”

While follow-up testing is expected of patients who receive positive test results for their unborn babies, these tests, the Times noted, “can cost thousands of dollars, come with a small risk of miscarriage and can’t be performed until later in pregnancy — in some states, past the point where abortions are legal.”

The New York Times found that Natera was not the only genetic testing company that neglected to share its real false positive rate. A review of patient and doctor brochures from eight testing companies, including Natera, Labcorp, and Quest, found that “ten of the brochures never mention that a false positive can happen,” and that “only one mentioned how often each test gets positive results wrong.”

Myriad Genetics boasted of “total confidence in every result” on its prenatal testing website but made no mention of how often false positives can occur, the Times noted. They removed that language, however, after the paper “inquired” about the tests.

The Times found in interviews that eight of 14 patients who got false positives for genetic disorders “said they never received any information about the possibility of a false positive,” and “five recalled that their doctor treated the test results as definitive.” These women described an “agonizing” experience after the positive results, including “sleepless days and nights hiding their bulging bellies from friends.”

In fact, Natera was more forthcoming about its results than other companies, according to the Times. It “publish[ed] data on how often its positive results are right,” and included that information “on patient results sheets.” Other companies, by contrast, “release … far less research on how well their screenings work.”

When confronted with some of the Times’ reporting, “half a dozen of the largest prenatal testing companies declined interview requests.” The paper said they issued statements “caution[ing] that the tests are meant not to diagnose a condition but rather to identify high-risk patients in need of additional testing.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: STOP Medical Discrimination at the Ronald McDonald House!
  Show Petition Text
17019 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 17500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Tell the Ronald McDonald House in British Columbia (BC) and Yukon to stop discriminating against families who do not wish to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine!

It seems incredible -- like one of those click-bait headlines you see every day on shady websites. 

But this is 100% real, and represents a terrifying new reality that families with sick children are facing without any rational or logical justification.

That's why we're asking you to SIGN and SHARE this crucial petition asking the Ronald McDonald House Charities leadership to STOP discriminating against the unvaccinated family members of sick children who need their support.

The Canadian Ronald McDonald House BC and Yukon, which provides housing for the families of sick children who are being treated in nearby hospitals, has sent letters to families ordering them to submit to the experimental COVID shots or to vacate the premises -- regardless of their children's needs.

On the organization's website, the Ronald McDonald House plainly states the following:  "All guests and visitors to the House must show proof of full vaccination against COVID-19. These measures in addition to an abundance of sanitizer and kindness will help us ensure the safety of everyone at the House."

But, of course, none of the measures suggested by the Ronald McDonald House, much less the COVID-19 vaccine, have been successful in stopping or even slowing the virus' transmission or reducing infection rates.

And with Pfizer's own CEO admitting just this week that the two COVID shots are not effective at preventing infection, it remains unclear what, exactly, the Ronald McDonald House means by "full vaccination."

Regardless, denying families housing during their child's hospital stay -- which is the primary mission of the Ronald McDonald House -- is not only a misguided discriminatory practice, it's stunningly cruel, and it must not continue going forward.

So please take a minute to SIGN and SHARE this important petition calling on Ronald McDonald House British Columbia and Yukon to stop discriminating against families based on their vaccination status.

These families need to focus on supporting their loved ones through very difficult medical situations and procedures, not get caught up the maddening politics of the COVID vaccine.

Whereas the Ronald McDonald Houses have historically been a refuge for needy families, they have now tragically succumbed to the mass formation psychosis over COVID taking Canada and the world by storm, and have decided to join in the unconscionable mass targeting of the unvaccinated to virtue-signal their way through these unprecedented times.

This is unacceptable -- particularly from an organization like the Ronald McDonald House -- and it must stop.

Thank you!

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Canadian-based Ronald McDonald House evicts unvaccinated family of 4-yr-old with cancer':
  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-based-ronald-mcdonald-house-evicts-unvaccinated-family-of-4-yr-old-with-cancer/

'Pfizer CEO backtracks on jab effectiveness, admits two shots offer ‘very limited protection’':  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pfizer-ceo-claimed-covid-jabs-were-100-effective-now-says-2-shots-offer-very-limited-protection-if-any/

  Hide Petition Text

While the Food and Drug Administration often regulates other medical tests for their accuracy and whether their limitations are clearly explained, “the F.D.A. does not regulate this type of test,” the Times noted.

“Alberto Gutierrez, the former director of the F.D.A. office that oversees many medical tests, reviewed marketing materials from three testing companies and described them as ‘problematic.’”

“I think the information they provide is misleading,” he said.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

6 Comments

    Loading...