GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213553061


From: Bill Howard <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] How could we tell?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:04:21 -0400
References: <537342.88546.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <537342.88546.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Not matching one doesn't prove a mistake, but not matching two out of
ten seems most suspicious......
- Bye from Bill Howard

On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:

> Not matching a pedigree doesn't prove a mistake. Afterall, that is
> why we are testing. You need to have them retested elsewhere to be
> sure.
>
> Bob Stafford
>
>
> Bill Howard <> wrote:
> Just a short note about my experience at SMGF - I sent in 10 samples
> in August 2005 and the results were not posted for more than a year.
> Some, but not all could later be identified on their web site.
> However, they made bad mistakes on two of the samples, due, I think,
> to sample switches, and I made many phone calls to people named
> Angela, Anna, and Karen. The pedigree did not match the relationships
> indicated by the test. My phone calls were taken with courtesy and I
> was told to wait. I waited and waited and waited. More phone
> calls...... nothing done although I told them exactly what was wrong
> and they all promised to look into it. Yes, I could have paid money to
> get the results, but if the samples had been switched, it would not
> have done any good.
> That's a 20% error rate in my book.
> - Bye from Bill Howard
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:
>
>> It is hard to tell what the lab error rate is, since most errors are
>> not reported publically. However, I suspect there are a lot more
>> than people think. I have seen about 20 posts about errors here and
>> on Genforum. I have also private reports from people about errors.
>> One big problem seems to be clerical errors. I am not clear where
>> they occur, unless the firms post results to their web sites
>> manually.
>>
>> There are probably many actual lab errors on single markers that
>> have not been discovered. They would probably not arouse suspicion
>> and would be discovered only if the person retested. DYS464 seems to
>> be a big problem, because the relative peak heights are used. I
>> think it is a good idea to retest at www.smgf.org, if there is a
>> mutation from the ancestral haplotype. It is a worthwhile project
>> anyway.
>>
>> One of the biggest problems, according to a person who works at a
>> lab, is sample switches, often on just one panel. I have seen
>> several cases posted. For people working within a documented
>> genealogy, they immediate arouse suspicion. However, a loner might
>> get bad results and never know.
>>
>> Bob Stafford
>>
>
>
> "History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
> "Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message



"History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
"Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"


This thread: