Originally posted by tomcat
View Post
The reason I am asking is that I have heard this before in relation to reports where there was nothing I could see in their data that would even remotely lead anyone, at least me, to see what the company allegedly saw. It is perhaps a "canned statement". Even with 657 K markers (but we are talking about 21 here) it is only with great hesitation that anyone could reasonably make such assessments. It just boggles my mind. There is something called "truth in advertising" and I might tend to question whether any test with 21 markers is able to make claims of this nature when the markers where not specifically chosen for their ancestral informative properties - but are being deployed in this way irrespective.
Comment