Save VCS-272 study guide downloaded from killexams.com and read

Guarantee that you have Veritas VCS-272 study guide of genuine inquiries for the Administration of Veritas NetBackup 7.6.1 Exam prep before you step through the genuine examination. We give the most refreshed and legitimate VCS-272 Dumps that contain VCS-272 actual test questions. We have gathered and made a data set of VCS-272 practice test from real

Exam Code: VCS-272 Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
Administration of Veritas NetBackup 7.6.1
Veritas Administration benefits
Killexams : Veritas Administration benefits - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/VCS-272 Search results Killexams : Veritas Administration benefits - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/VCS-272 https://killexams.com/exam_list/Veritas Killexams : Veritas Flex Appliance Getting Started and Administration Guide

For account security, your password must meet the following criteria: At least ten (10) characters, A lowercase letter, An uppercase letter, A number, A symbol, Does not include your username, Is not any of your last 4 passwords.

Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.veritas.com/support/en_US/doc/130821112-151833038-0/v130878449-151833038
Killexams : Veritas Technologies Named a Leader in the 2022 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Backup and Recovery Software Solutions for the 17th Time

Veritas Technologies, a leader in multi-cloud data management, today announced it has been named a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup and Recovery Software Solutions for the 17th time.1 Veritas believes this recognition further validates the company's investment and commitment to delivering a rapid pace of innovation and the most advanced solutions to protect and recover the critical data of the world's largest enterprises.

Enterprises are facing the unparalleled challenge of managing unprecedented data growth across increasingly complex multi-cloud environments, leading to larger attack surfaces and increasing ransomware threats – one of the biggest business risks today. Veritas is uniquely positioned to address this challenge.

Veritas continues to drive innovation as it executes on its vision for delivering Autonomous Data Management, where data is protected invisibly and automatically without sacrificing human oversight. NetBackup 10 is the industry's first cloud-optimized, highly scalable data protection solution that uses AI and automation, enabling IT to shift its focus from day-to-day business operations to driving transformation. Benefits of the solution include:

  • Automated operations: Dynamic cloud autoscaling, intelligent cloud policies, and AI-based anomaly detection help to maximize efficiency and security with minimal oversight.
  • Cloud-native architecture: Veritas' rearchitected NetBackup technology stack integrates new Cloud Scale Technology to provide a unified, cloud-optimized, secure experience across on-premises, hybrid and multi-cloud environments. It combines cloud-native snapshots with elastic deduplication and lifecycle management capabilities to significantly reduce total cost of ownership.
  • Cybersecurity: NetBackup delivers a multi-layered approach to security providing unparalleled ransomware resiliency in the face of an attack, including immutable storage, malware scanning and automated, orchestrated recovery with a single click.
  • Flexibility: NetBackup provides multiple deployment options for customers delivering the flexibility to choose the ideal solution for their unique requirements and use cases. Options include software only, appliances and SaaS solutions.
  • Global reach: Veritas supports large enterprises on a global scale with a strong partner ecosystem, enabling an advanced customer experience across geographies.

Deepak Mohan, executive vice president of products at Veritas, said: "As enterprises continue to advance their multi-cloud strategies, it is now more important than ever that they deploy an Autonomous Data Management solution that automatically finds and protects data, no matter where it lives, all without human involvement to increase efficiency and reduce complexity. Veritas is continuously innovating and executing to transform the future of data management with autonomous, cloud-optimized solutions. We believe that being recognized as a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup and Recovery Software Solutions further corroborates our strategy and ongoing dedication to protecting our customers' critical data consistently and efficiently across any cloud at any scale."

A complimentary copy of the full 2022 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup and Recovery Software Solutions report can be found here.

1Previous titles include Magic Quadrant and Datacenter Backup and Recovery Solutions (2020-2019), Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup Software and Integrated Appliances (2014-2015), Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup/Recovery Software (2011-2013), Enterprise Backup and Restore Magic Quadrant (2001, 2003-2005), Enterprise Backup Vendor Magic Quadrant (1999-2000). From 2005-2015, Veritas Technologies was known as Symantec.

Gartner, Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup and Recovery Software Solutions, Michael Hoeck, Nik Simpson, Jerry Rozeman, Jason Donham, 28 July 2022.

Gartner Disclaimer

Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in our research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

GARTNER and Magic Quadrant are registered trademarks and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and are used herein with permission. All rights reserved.

About Veritas

Veritas Technologies is a leader in multi-cloud data management. Over 80,000 customers—including 95% of the Fortune 100–rely on us to help ensure the protection, recoverability, and compliance of their data. Veritas has a reputation for reliability at scale, which delivers the resilience its customers need against the disruptions threatened by cyberattacks, like ransomware. No other vendor is able to match Veritas' ability to execute, with support for 800+ data sources, 100+ operating systems, 1,400+ storage targets, and 60+ clouds through a single, unified approach. Powered by our Cloud Scale Technology, Veritas is delivering today on its strategy for Autonomous Data Management that reduces operational overhead while delivering greater value. Learn more at www.veritas.com. Follow us on Twitter at @veritastechllc.

Veritas and the Veritas Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Veritas Technologies LLC or its affiliates in the US and other countries.

© 2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Ad Disclosure: The rate information is obtained by Bankrate from the listed institutions. Bankrate cannot guaranty the accuracy or availability of any rates shown above. Institutions may have different rates on their own websites than those posted on Bankrate.com. The listings that appear on this page are from companies from which this website receives compensation, which may impact how, where, and in what order products appear. This table does not include all companies or all available products.

All rates are subject to change without notice and may vary depending on location. These quotes are from banks, thrifts, and credit unions, some of whom have paid for a link to their own Web site where you can find additional information. Those with a paid link are our Advertisers. Those without a paid link are listings we obtain to Strengthen the consumer shopping experience and are not Advertisers. To receive the Bankrate.com rate from an Advertiser, please identify yourself as a Bankrate customer. Bank and thrift deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Credit union deposits are insured by the National Credit Union Administration.

Consumer Satisfaction: Bankrate attempts to verify the accuracy and availability of its Advertisers' terms through its quality assurance process and requires Advertisers to agree to our Terms and Conditions and to adhere to our Quality Control Program. If you believe that you have received an inaccurate quote or are otherwise not satisfied with the services provided to you by the institution you choose, please click here.

Rate collection and criteria: Click here for more information on rate collection and criteria.

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 03:15:00 -0500 text/html https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/22/08/b28334730/veritas-technologies-named-a-leader-in-the-2022-gartner-magic-quadrant-for-enterprise-backup-and-r
Killexams : A Library of Resources About Backup & Recovery, Data Protection & More No result found, try new keyword!As a leader in the field, Veritas has the tools and resources needed to provide ... Data Protection in the Cloud Data protection in the cloud is crucial for any business. Explore the benefits of cloud ... Sun, 24 Apr 2022 01:33:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.veritas.com/information-center Killexams : Veritas uses fund for the middle-tier to back radio tech maker

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may Strengthen our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may Strengthen our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may Strengthen our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://washingtontechnology.com/companies/2022/07/veritas-uses-fund-middle-tier-back-radio-tech-maker/374932/
Killexams : Veritas Elementary No result found, try new keyword!Veritas Elementary is a public school located in Manteca, CA, which is in a small suburb setting. The student population of Veritas Elementary is 872 and the school serves K-8. At Veritas ... Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:00:00 -0500 text/html https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/california/veritas-elementary-234296 Killexams : Using autonomous, AI-powered data protection to manage a new era of hybrid working No result found, try new keyword!Johnny Karam, Managing Director and Vice President of International Emerging Region at Veritas Technologies In the UAE, few organisations fully embraced hybrid working before the pandemic. Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:15:00 -0500 text/html https://www.itp.net/uncategorized/using-autonomous-ai-powered-data-protection-to-manage-a-new-era-of-hybrid-working Killexams : Veritas Capital Announces Strategic Investment in Epiq Solutions

NEW YORK & ROLLING MEADOWS, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jul 26, 2022--

Veritas Capital (“Veritas”), a leading technology and government investment firm, today announced that The Veritas Capital Vantage Fund, L.P. (“Vantage Fund”) has made a strategic investment in Epiq Solutions, a leading provider of software defined radio and turnkey radio frequency (“RF”) solutions for governments and enterprises. Epiq Solutions is now a portfolio company of the Vantage Fund, which targets opportunities in the middle market. Co-founders John Orlando, Aaron Madsen, and Michael Shogren will continue to lead the company and will retain a significant ownership position. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

Founded in 2009, Epiq Solutions provides small form factor, SWaP-C (size, weight, power and cost) optimized software defined radio and turnkey RF solutions for mission-critical military and commercial embedded computing applications. The company offers a portfolio of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and differentiated software solutions that leverage open-architecture standards, allowing government and enterprise customers to rapidly insert technology and accelerate modernization efforts.

“We’re thrilled to partner with Veritas, a premier technology investor with decades of experience, to accelerate our growth,” said John Orlando, CEO of Epiq Solutions. “Veritas’ deep network, expertise investing at the intersection of technology and government, and collaborative approach will support our continued investment in product advancement and our rapid expansion into new markets. We look forward to delivering enhanced, best-in-class technology and powerful, mission-critical solutions to an expanded set of customers in the years to come.”

“Epiq’s contemporary, market-leading open architecture solutions and unwavering commitment to its customers have positioned it at the forefront of the industry,” said Hugh Evans, a Managing Partner of Veritas Capital. “With strong customer traction, the company is well positioned to meet its customers’ diverse and evolving needs and scale its national platform amid strong industry tailwinds. We look forward to partnering with John and the talented team to support the company’s continued growth, both organically and through targeted acquisitions.”

Latham & Watkins served as legal counsel to Veritas. Raymond James served as financial advisor to Epiq Solutions and Miles & Stockbridge served as legal counsel.

About Veritas Capital

Veritas is a longstanding technology investor with a focus on companies operating at the intersection of technology and government. The firm invests in companies that provide critical products, software, and services, primarily technology and technology-enabled solutions, to government and commercial customers worldwide. Veritas seeks to create value by strategically transforming the companies in which it invests through organic and inorganic means. Leveraging technology to make a positive impact across vitally important areas, such as national security, healthcare, and education, is core to Veritas. We are proud stewards of national assets, protecting our nation and allies, improving the quality of healthcare while reducing cost, and advancing our educational system.

The Vantage Fund is a $1.8 billion fund targeting opportunities in the middle market. The Vantage Fund seeks to leverage the integrated platform, unique capabilities and demonstrated intellectual property of Veritas. For more information, visit www.veritascapital.com.

About Epiq Solutions

Epiq Solutions develops cutting edge RF tools that provide situational awareness and detailed insight into RF environments. With more than a decade serving governments and enterprises, and thousands of devices fielded, Epiq Solutions understands speed, cost, and performance for mission-critical applications. Epiq’s radically small, state-of-the-art software defined radio solutions and turnkey RF tools lead the way in minimizing size, weight, and power consumption. For more information, visit www.epiqsolutions.com.

View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220726005453/en/

CONTACT: MediaFor Epiq Solutions:

Chris Whalen

VP of Sales

cwhalen@epiqsolutions.comFor Veritas Capital:

FGS Global

Jenny Gore / Suzanne Byowitz

VeritasCapital-SVC@sardverb.com

KEYWORD: ILLINOIS NEW YORK UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA

INDUSTRY KEYWORD: CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE

SOURCE: Veritas Capital

Copyright Business Wire 2022.

PUB: 07/26/2022 08:00 AM/DISC: 07/26/2022 08:03 AM

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220726005453/en

Copyright Business Wire 2022.

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:03:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.joplinglobe.com/region/national_business/veritas-capital-announces-strategic-investment-in-epiq-solutions/article_3c983b4b-9fff-5c5a-a5f2-36fcd571a459.html
Killexams : Evaluating Web-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility

Falling costs of genetic testing in combination with growing public interest in personal genomics has driven the expansion of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Today’s market encompasses a broad range of offerings, from tests that pair users with wines to tests that reveal serious disease risks.1 This review focuses on one area of the rapidly expanding DTC market—genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Within this space, DTC offerings vary considerably in size and scope. The narrowest is a test that screens for three specific mutations in two genes and the broadest is a whole-genome sequencing service that analyzes dozens of genes for mutations that could affect cancer risk.

Traditionally, DTC genetic tests were advertised—and sold—to consumers without involving a health care professional; however, in latest years, a new model of testing has come to dominate the market. In this model, tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by licensed physicians.2-5 A number of companies even allow consumers to choose between having tests ordered by their own physician or by a company-provided independent physician.

In both the academic literature and the popular media, there is a lack of clarity about which genetic tests count as DTC offerings.6 This uncertainty, as Hogarth et al7 explain, stems from ambiguity about the meaning of direct-to-consumer, a term that “has been used variously to refer to both advertising and sale of genetic tests.” According to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), DTC genetic tests “are marketed directly to customers via television, print advertisements, or the Internet, and . . . can be bought online or in stores.”8(p163) Under this expansive definition, tests that are advertised to consumers but ordered by licensed physicians—often referred to as the hybrid model—fall within the ambit of DTC genetic testing.2,5

CONTEXT

  • Key Objective

  • To provide an overview of available direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and to identify six aspects of the testing process that could affect consumers’ ability to make informed decisions about testing and interpret their results.

  • Knowledge Generated

  • Recent years have seen DTC genetic testing for cancer susceptibility change dramatically. Specifically, a new model now dominates the market where tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by physicians. Moreover, many of today’s tests are distinguished from earlier DTC offerings for cancer susceptibility by their scope and potential clinical significance. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and identifies aspects of the DTC testing process that could affect consumers’ ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand their results. Given how the DTC genetic testing market for cancer susceptibility has changed in latest years, it is essential that health care professionals and researchers working in this space appreciate both the range of tests being offered and the challenges that consumers may face as they navigate this evolving landscape.

  • Relevance

  • On the basis of our review of companies’ Web sites, consumers would benefit from more information about certain aspects of the testing process. Providing this information would help consumers make informed decisions about whether to use a particular DTC genetic testing service and, should they choose to pursue testing, understand the implications and limitations of their results.

Other than the shift toward physician-ordered testing, many of today’s tests are distinguished from their predecessors by their scope and potential clinical significance. Previously, in the mid-to-late 2000s, most DTC tests used single-nucleotide variation profiling to assess cancer risk, a process that involves screening a DNA trial for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—single base-pair differences that occur at specific positions in the genome—that may affect cancer risk.9,10 Single-nucleotide variation profiling, however, tends to have low predictive value for disease risk and limited usefulness in improving health outcomes (ie, clinical utility).

Today’s DTC companies have largely moved away from using single-nucleotide variation profiling. Instead, they tend to analyze specific genes for mutations that increase cancer risk. Yet this change has not eliminated uncertainty in cancer susceptibility genetic testing. For many of the genes included in larger tests, a positive result may be associated with uncertain risk estimates and/or unclear medical management strategies.11,12

Given how the DTC genetic testing market for cancer susceptibility has changed in latest years, it is essential that health care professionals and researchers working in this space appreciate both the range of tests being offered and the challenges that consumers may face as they navigate this evolving landscape. Part I of this paper provides an overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility as of July 2019. For each test, we discuss cost; who orders it; whether variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are returned; availability of genetic counseling; intended users; whether consumers are recontacted about variant reclassifications; whether the test is characterized by the company as being diagnostic, actionable, and clinically valid; molecular technique used to analyze DNA; and whether the test is Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certified and College of American Pathologists (CAP) accredited.

In Part II, we identify six aspects of the testing process that we believe could affect consumers’ ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand the implications—and limitations—of their results.13 These are: how companies use certain terms (eg, medical grade or clinical grade); how companies use consumers’ health information during the ordering process; the extent of genetic counseling provided by companies; companies’ procedures for returning results; the role of company-provided ordering physicians; and companies’ procedures for communicating variant reclassifications. On the basis of our review of companies’ Web sites, we believe that consumers would benefit from more information about these aspects of testing.

Here we describe the array of DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility that were on the market as of July 2019 (Table 1). Given the Internet-based nature of DTC genetic testing, today’s consumers primarily receive and interact with DTC companies’ offerings through their Web sites. Thus, to better capture the information that consumers are likely to access when deciding whether to use a test, we only include information about testing services that is, or was, available on companies’ Web sites. It is worth noting that some companies do not explicitly define the terms diagnostic, actionable, or clinically valid. Whereas we describe how each company characterizes these terms and indicate when definitions are absent, inasmuch as our objective is to convey what companies report on their Web sites, we do not evaluate the accuracy of their claims.14

Table

TABLE 1. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility

23andMe

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to 23andMe (Sunnyvale, CA) ordering the company to discontinue marketing its Personal Genome Service, which included reports for several hundred diseases and conditions, an SNP-based risk score for breast cancer, and a limited BRCA1/BRCA2 test.15 According to the FDA, 23andMe had failed to demonstrate that its service could correctly identify genetic disease risks, made misleading claims about the health benefits of tests, and failed to comply with the premarket review process for medical devices.16

Since that time, 23andMe has substantially revised its services. In March 2018, the FDA authorized 23andMe to market a BRCA test that screens for three specific BRCA1/BRCA2 variants, making it the first FDA-authorized DTC genetic test to report on cancer risk.17,18 Although there are more than 1,000 known BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations that are associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, 23andMe’s test only screens for three founder mutations—two in the BRCA1 gene (BRCA1 c.68_69delAG and BRCA1 c.5266dupC) and one in the BRCA2 gene (BRCA2 c.5946delT)—that are found almost exclusively in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.17 The test, therefore, is unlikely to be useful to individuals from other ethnic backgrounds.19,20 As 23andMe acknowledges, its BRCA screen is not comprehensive and does not rule out the possibility that an individual carries one of the many BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations not covered by its report.21

In January 2019, 23andMe received FDA clearance to expand its cancer susceptibility testing to report on two MUTYH genetic mutations that are implicated in MUTYH-associated polyposis, an autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome.22 The two variants that are included in the test—p.Y179C and p.G396D—are the most common pathogenic MUTYH mutations in individuals of northern European descent, although there are more than 100 pathogenic MUTYH variants.23 In the general northern European, Australian, and US population, the heterozygous carrier frequency for a pathogenic MUTYH variant is 1% to 2%.2 Individuals with a single MUTYH mutation are thought to have a slightly increased risk of colorectal cancer relative to the general population lifetime risk—approximately 4%.25-27 In contrast, individuals carrying mutations in both MUTYH alleles have a much higher cumulative risk of colorectal cancer—approximately 80% by age 70.28

23andMe’s BRCA report is included with its Health + Ancestry Service.29 Excluding special offers, the service costs $199. Consumers order their own tests and receive their results through an online account. If a consumer does not wish to view his or her BRCA result, they can opt to exclude it from the report. Although the company does not provide genetic counseling, consumers are encouraged to consult with a genetic counselor before and after testing. 23andMe uses genotyping to analyze DNA. The company states that its BRCA test meets FDA requirements for clinical validity, which it defines as “the degree to which a test accurately identifies or predicts a disease of interest.”30 23andMe maintains that its BRCA test “is not intended to diagnose any disease and does not describe a person’s overall risk of developing any type of cancer.”22 It also maintains that the test is not medically actionable and that “[r]esults should be confirmed in a clinical setting before taking any medical action.”22 All DNA samples are processed in CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratories.

Veritas Genetics

Veritas (Santa Clara, CA) offers a whole-genome sequencing service called myGenome Standard that costs $599. For an additional $1,000, consumers can upgrade to myGenome Premium, which includes more diseases and carrier conditions. myGenome (standard and premium) can be ordered by the consumer’s own provider or, for an additional $129, by an independent physician affiliated with the telegenomics company Genome Medical. When the results are ready, Veritas notifies the consumer and the ordering provider, both of whom can then access the report through Veritas’ Web portal. If interested, consumers can pay an additional $99 to receive their raw data.

For myGenome (standard and premium), pathogenic and likely pathogenic results are reported, and benign, likely benign, and VUS results are not typically returned. Veritas does not state whether it will contact the ordering provider or the consumer about variant reclassifications. Through Genome Medical, Veritas offers a complimentary 30-minute return of results genetic counseling session for clinically actionable findings. Consumers can also pay $299 for Comprehensive Genetic Counseling, which includes access to pretest counseling and a 60-minute post-test session to review results.

According to Veritas, its service is intended to be a screening test for healthy individuals; however, myGenome is not meant to be diagnostic because “there is a chance that some of the variants that are associated with health conditions or disease risk could be missed.”31 As such, the test “should not be used to diagnose a known or suspected heritable disease in [the consumer] or [the consumer’s family].”32 Veritas does not state whether myGenome is a clinically valid test. It does, however, characterize myGenome as providing information that may “affect [the consumer’s] health and [is] actionable, be it with changes in diet and activity level, medical screenings, or enhanced vigilance.”33 Nevertheless, it is not clear that Veritas’ findings, at least by themselves, are intended to inform clinical care.34 This interpretation is supported by the company’s informed consent document, which states that “all variants considered clinically relevant in [the consumer’s] report should be confirmed with secondary testing before changes to [the consumer’s] healthcare are made.”32 Veritas uses next-generation sequencing to analyze DNA. The company’s US laboratory is CLIA certified and CAP accredited.

Invitae Corporation

Invitae (San Francisco, CA) offers a cancer susceptibility panel—Invitae Cancer Screen—that consists of 61 genes associated with 10 types of cancer (breast, colorectal, gastric, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal cell, thyroid, uterine, and cutaneous melanoma). In addition, Invitae offers cancer susceptibility testing as part of its Genetic Health Screen, which consists of a 147-gene panel that also analyzes genes related to cardiac diseases and other inherited conditions. Neither test is intended to be diagnostic; both are considered proactive services that are intended for healthy adults without a strong personal or family history of cancer.

Invitae’s Cancer Screen and Genetic Health Screen cost $250 and $350, respectively, and can be ordered by the consumer’s own provider or by a company-provided physician. The ordering provider is notified via e-mail when the results are ready and receives a written report. Consumers who have their test ordered by an independent physician receive an e-mail when the results are ready, at which time they can review their results and schedule an appointment with one of Invitae’s genetic counselors. Post-test genetic counseling is available at no additional cost.

Invitae uses next-generation sequencing and does not report VUS findings for proactive tests. However, if a VUS is reclassified to likely pathogenic or pathogenic, Invitae will inform the ordering physician and issue an updated report. Invitae does not say whether it will contact the ordering physician and issue an amended report for other variant reclassifications. The company also does not state whether either proactive test is clinically valid, although it does provide links to validation studies.35 Regarding actionability, Invitae maintains that consumers can “take action based on [their] results” and “work with [their] provider to consider: increased or earlier screenings, lifestyle modifications, and early intervention to prevent the onset of disease.”36 Invitae’s laboratory is CLIA certified and CAP accredited.

Color Genomics

Color Genomics (Burlingame, CA) offers a test called Color Extended that analyzes genes related to cancer, cardiac disease, and medication response. The test costs $258.95 and includes 30 cancer predisposition genes associated with eight types of cancer (breast, ovarian, uterine, colorectal, melanoma, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate). Color Extended can be ordered by either the consumer’s own provider or by a company-provided independent physician at no additional charge. If the consumer’s own provider orders the test, the provider can choose whether the results are released to the consumer as soon as they are ready or after a delay. For tests that are ordered by an independent physician, information about the process for returning results is not available on the company’s Web site. Consumers who wish to discuss their results can access complimentary genetic counseling.

Color uses next-generation sequencing and reports VUS findings. If a VUS result is reclassified, Color will attempt to recontact the consumer. The company does not state whether Color Extended is a clinically valid test in its entirety. However, there is a section on the Web site where Color discusses the clinical validity of its tests with respect to certain conditions.37 Color Extended is described as being actionable, meaning that the consumer can “work with [their] healthcare provider to create a personalized screening and prevention plan, designed to reduce [their] risk of developing cancer.”38 Color maintains that its test is not diagnostic because “[p]ositive results do not necessarily mean that [the consumer] [has] that hereditary disorder or that [the consumer] will develop the disorder in [their] lifetime” and “[n]egative results do not eliminate [the consumer’s] risk of developing a disorder, and do not certain that [the consumer] will be healthy or will never develop any of the disorders that Color tests for.”39 Color’s laboratory is CLIA certified and CAP accredited.

Helix

Helix (San Carlos, CA) offers two tests—GenePrism and Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Score—that evaluate cancer susceptibility. Whereas both tests are sold by Helix, GenePrism is administered by PerkinElmer Genomics, and Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Score is administered by NorthShore University HealthSystem. The tests can only be ordered by a physician who is affiliated with the relevant partner company.

GenePrism analyzes the 59 genes included in the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics’ list of actionable genes, of which 26 are associated with an increased risk of cancer.40 The test costs $299.99, including a $30 fee that covers the ordering physician and genetic counseling services. The test is “intended to provide proactive health insights for those who do not have a significant family history associated with the health conditions that it includes.”41 The consumer is notified by e-mail when the results are ready to be accessed through the GenePrism Web site. Helix does not explicitly state whether the test is clinically valid. GenePrism is not a diagnostic test and “is not intended to diagnose any medical conditions” and “will not tell you if you currently have one of the conditions covered by the test, or if you definitely will or will not develop the condition in the future.”41 The test does not report VUS results. Helix describes the test as actionable, which, according to the company, means that “if [the consumer] learn[s] of a genetic risk from the test, [the consumer’s] risk is significantly increased over the general population, and there are actions [the consumer] or [the consumer’s] doctor can take to reduce [the consumer’s] risks based on established medical recommendations.”41 Helix does not explain its procedures for recontacting consumers about variant reclassifications, although the company does maintain that “[r]esults may change as research continues to allow us to better interpret what these and other genes mean for health.”41

Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Score is an outlier among DTC cancer susceptibility tests. Unlike other tests that focus on single-gene mutations, Helix’s test provides a polygenic risk score based on an analysis of numerous SNPs that affect prostate cancer. The test costs $239.99, which includes a $40.00 fee that covers the ordering physician and genetic counseling services. Helix does not state whether the test is intended for individuals with a personal and/or family history of prostate cancer. Results are returned through secure e-mail. Helix maintains that the test is not a diagnostic product because “[a]n estimate of [the consumer’s] risk does not determine if [the consumer] will or will not get prostate cancer.”42 Helix does not state whether the test is clinically valid or whether results are medically actionable.

Helix uses next-generation sequencing to analyze DNA. For both GenePrism and Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Score, genetic counseling is available through Genome Medical at no additional charge. Helix’s laboratory is CLIA certified and CAP accredited.

Meaning of Terms

In describing their offerings, several companies use terms that they do not clearly define. For example, Invitae characterizes its proactive tests as medical grade and diagnostic grade. Except to say that its proactive tests “offer the same clinical quality as a diagnostic test,” the company does not explicitly define either of these terms.43 Similarly, Color characterizes its offering as an “affordable clinical-grade test,” but does not specify what the term clinical grade means. Of note, despite describing these tests as medical, diagnostic, or clinical grade, both Invitae and Color maintain that their services are not intended to be diagnostic.39,43 Consumers who are unclear about the meanings of these terms, none of which are scientific or medical designations, may struggle to understand why a test that is marketed as medical-, diagnostic-, or clinical grade should not be used in a diagnostic capacity.

In addition, given that tests are often characterized as being medical, diagnostic, or clinical grade, consumers may wonder whether their results could expose them to potential insurance discrimination. According to the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), it is illegal for US health insurance providers to use genetic information, including from DTC tests, to deny coverage or increase premiums. GINA, however, does not apply when an employer has fewer than 15 employees or to other forms of insurance (eg, disability insurance, long-term care insurance, and/or life insurance).44 Although all of the companies seem to provide some information on their Web sites about genetic discrimination, discussions about how consumers’ results could affect their access to different types of insurance is often covered during pretest counseling, which may be lacking in the DTC setting.

Companies could also be more transparent about whether their tests can accurately predict an individual’s risk of developing a particular disease—that is, whether they are clinically valid. Most DTC cancer susceptibility genetic tests analyze an array of genes that encompass a wide range of risk estimates. Whereas some of the genes included in these tests have well-established risk estimates, not all do. For example, Color and Veritas’ tests include the MITF gene.45,46 Although MITF mutations are suspected to increase the risk of melanoma and renal carcinoma, the extent to which a mutation carrier’s risk is elevated remains unclear.45,47 Overall, consumers might benefit from greater clarity about which genes in a test are considered clinically valid. Providing this information in a transparent and accessible manner could help consumers decide whether to pursue a test that may include genes with low predictive value for cancer risk.

Use of Consumers’ Health Information

Companies with testing services that can be ordered by a company-provided physician often ask consumers to answer a set of questions about their personal and family health history; however, it is not always clear how ordering physicians use this information. For example, Veritas maintains that consumers’ responses to these questions “are necessary to sequence [their] DNA and also helps [Veritas] better interpret [their] results.”48 Nevertheless, Veritas does not clarify how this information factors into the ordering process. As consumers consider whether to purchase a test, they may be interested in learning how their health information will be used. In particular, they might want to know whether the physician will follow up to discuss their health history before ordering testing. Consumers might also wonder whether company-provided physicians ever decline to order testing and, if so, for what reasons.

Genetic Counseling

Although all of the companies that offer physician-ordered DTC genetic tests seem to provide genetic counseling in some capacity, the extent, timing, and cost of these services is sometimes unclear. For example, Invitae maintains that “[o]ur team of board-certified genetic counselors is available on demand by phone during business hours to assist you with general questions about genetic testing and your results.”49 What remains unclear (for Invitae and some of the other companies) is the extent to which pretest counseling is comprehensive and individualized. In the clinical setting, pretest counseling is widely regarded as an important part of obtaining informed consent to testing.50,51 Companies could therefore help consumers make informed choices about whether to pursue DTC testing by including more information on their Web sites about pretest counseling.

Currently, companies differ in terms of how they provide genetic counseling. Helix, for example, outsources its genetic counseling to Genome Medical, which is a distinct corporate entity from Helix.41 Other companies, such as Invitae, offer in-house counseling that includes pretest counseling.49 This arrangement raises potential ethical concerns about whether a conflict of interest arises when companies provide pretest counseling services for their own tests.52,53

Procedures for Returning Results

Most of the companies that offer tests through the physician-ordered model do not include a detailed description of their process for returning results. On the basis of the companies’ online materials, it may not be clear whether procedures vary depending on the clinical significance of consumers’ results. Are positive and VUS results disclosed over the phone by a genetic counselor, while negative results are delivered through an online portal? Again, providing more information could help consumers make informed decisions about whether they are comfortable with a company’s model for returning results.

Role of Company-Provided Physicians

For some of the companies that offer company-provided independent physicians, it is unclear what role, if any, these physicians play beyond simply ordering tests. It is also not clear how companies conceive of the relationship between consumers and these physicians, some of whom may belong to an external physician network or separate company.54 For example, Helix states that the company “will share [the consumer’s] contact information and health history with PerkinElmer Genomics so a physician they designate can review and make sure this product is right for [the consumer].”41 Consumers may wonder whether they can contact the ordering physician with additional questions about the test or their results. Notably, will the ordering physician assume responsibility for a consumer’s follow-up care or refer the consumer to another provider? As of now, these questions are not easily answerable from companies’ online materials.

Variant Reclassification

As scientific understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, genetic test results may be amended. Some changes could have significant clinical implications for disease risk and medical management (eg, a VUS that is upgraded to pathogenic). Nevertheless, information about companies’ procedures for handling amended results may not be readily available. Color’s Informed Consent, for instance, lacks specific information about how the company manages variant reclassification beyond stating that it may “at its sole discretion, amend or modify [the consumer’s] Test report” and will “attempt to notify (the consumer) of any material amendments or modifications.”39 Some companies, however, do not provide any information about variant reclassification. Helix’s informed consent, for instance, notes that “future information may change your results,” but does not specify whether the company monitors for variant changes or notify consumers about them.55 Given the potential clinical significance of variant reclassifications, consumers could benefit from more information about companies’ procedures for tracking variant changes and sharing amended results.

In conclusion, genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, once limited to the clinical setting, is now widely available through Web-based DTC genetic testing companies. To better understand whether test takers are knowledgeable about companies’ testing procedures, there is an urgent need to collect and study consumer outcome data.13 As the DTC market continues to evolve, outcome data should inform companies’ products and practices to ensure that consumers are equipped to make informed decisions throughout the testing process and understand their results.

1. Vinome: Home. https://vinome.com/ Google Scholar 2. Allyse MA, Robinson DH, Ferber MJ, et al: Direct-to-consumer testing 2.0: Emerging models of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Mayo Clin Proc 93:113-120, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 3. Roberts JS, Ostergren J: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of latest empirical studies. Curr Genet Med Rep 1:182-200, 2013 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 4. Howard HC, Borry P: Is there a doctor in the house?: The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context. J Community Genet 3:105-112, 2012 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 5. Phillips KA, Trosman JR, Douglas MP: Emergence of hybrid models of genetic testing beyond direct-to-consumer or traditional labs. JAMA 321:2403-2404, 2019 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 6. Chokoshvili D, Vears DF, Borry P: Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: Direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based offers. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 44:57-67, 2017 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 7. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D: The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:161-182, 2008 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 8. National Institutes of Health: Genetics Home Reference: What is direct-to-consumer genetic testing? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/directtoconsumer Google Scholar 9. Bellcross CA, Page PZ, Meaney-Delman D: Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing and cancer risk prediction. Cancer J 18:293-302, 2012 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 10. Kutz G: Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. Washington DC, US Government Accountability Office, 2010 Google Scholar 11. Domchek SM, Bradbury A, Garber JE, et al: Multiplex genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: Out on the high wire without a net? J Clin Oncol 31:1267-1270, 2013 LinkGoogle Scholar 12. Kilbride MK, Domchek SM, Bradbury AR: Ethical implications of direct-to-consumer hereditary cancer tests. JAMA Oncol 4:1327-1328, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 13. Spector-Bagdady K: Reconceptualizing consent for direct-to-consumer health services. Am J Law Med 41:568-616, 2015 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 14. US Food and Drug Administration: Frequently asked questions about CDER. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/frequently-asked-questions-about-cder#4 Google Scholar 15. 23andMe: What you can expect. https://web.archive.org/web/20131127233338/https://www.23andme.com/health/all/ Google Scholar 16. US Food and Drug Administration: Warning letter. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111084101/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm Google Scholar 17. US Food and Drug Administration: FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm Google Scholar 18. Francke U, Dijamco C, Kiefer AK, et al: Dealing with the unexpected: Consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. PeerJ 1:e8, 2013 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 19. Gill J, Obley AJ, Prasad V: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: The implications of the US FDA’s first marketing authorization for BRCA mutation testing. JAMA 319:2377-2378, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 20. Artin MG, Stiles D, Kiryluk K, et al: Cases in precision medicine: When patients present with direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Ann Intern Med 170:643-650, 2019 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 21. 23andMe: Do you speak BRCA? https://www.23andme.com/brca/ Google Scholar 22. 23andMe: 23andMe receives FDA clearance for genetic health risk report that looks at a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. https://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/23andme-receives-fda-clearance-for-genetic-health-risk-report-that-looks-at-a-hereditary-colorectal-cancer-syndrome/ Google Scholar 23. US Food and Drug Administration: 510(k) substantial equivalence determination decision summary. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K182784.pdf Google Scholar 24. National Institutes of Health: Polyposis MUTYH. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107219/#maps.Prevalence Google Scholar 25. National Cancer Institute: Cancer stat facts: Colorectal cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html Google Scholar 26. Sampson JR, Jones N: MUTYH-associated polyposis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 23:209-218, 2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 27. Win AK, Dowty JG, Cleary SP, et al: Risk of colorectal cancer for carriers of mutations in MUTYH, with and without a family history of cancer. Gastroenterology 146:1208-1211.e1201-1205, 2014 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 28. Win AK, Cleary SP, Dowty JG, et al: Cancer risks for monoallelic MUTYH mutation carriers with a family history of colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 129:2256-2262, 2011 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 29. 23andMe: Health + ancestry. https://www.23andme.com/dna-health-ancestry/ Google Scholar 30. 23andMe: Understanding our scientific process. https://medical.23andme.com/about-our-test/ Google Scholar 31. Veritas Genetics: Test limitations. https://www.veritasgenetics.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/ProductOnePager_myGenome_TestLimitations_Final.pdf Google Scholar 32. Veritas Genetics: Informed consent form. https://www.veritasgenetics.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/mg.icP_.1018v4.1.pdf Google Scholar 33. Veritas Genetics: Get the most comprehensive genetic testing service there is. https://www.veritasgenetics.com/myGenome Google Scholar 34. Veritas: myGenome: Frequently asked questions. https://www.veritasgenetics.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/ProductOnePager_myGenome_FAQs_V1_12.04.18.pdf Google Scholar 35. Invitae: Leading with science. https://www.invitae.com/en/validation-studies/ Google Scholar 36. Invitae: Proactive genetic testing. https://www.invitae.com/en/individuals/proactive-testing/ Google Scholar 37. Color: Testing for CDC tier 1 genomic conditions. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3989189/Color%20Population%20Health%20Dossier.pdf?__hssc=19492199.1.1544137941126&__hstc=19492199.dd083e937d69ddfe9539ad39e60ac673.1540603747733.1544130266596.1544137941126.39&__hsfp=3043820372&hsCtaTracking=dd024757-074d-4e51-93aa-6d28feadbb0e%7C99b388e1-993b-43e9-9f98-48687160dff3 Google Scholar 38. Color: Hereditary cancer. https://www.color.com/learn/can-cancer-be-inherited Google Scholar 39. Color: Informed consent. https://www.color.com/informed-consent Google Scholar 40. Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 19:249-255, 2017 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 41. Helix: GenePrism: Actionable insights. https://www.helix.com/products/geneprism-actionable-insights Google Scholar 42. Helix. Prostate cancer genetic risk score. https://www.helix.com/products/prostate-cancer-genetic-risk-score Google Scholar 43. Invitae: How is this type of testing different from a diagnostic genetic test? https://support.invitae.com/hc/en-us/articles/115007883908-How-is-this-type-of-testing-different-from-a-diagnostic-genetic-test- Google Scholar 44. National Institutes of Health: Can the results of direct-to-consumer genetic testing affect my ability to get insurance? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/dtcinsurancerisk Google Scholar 45. Color; MITF. https://static.getcolor.com/pdfs/gene/Color_MITF_gene_information.pdf Google Scholar 46. Veritas: myGenome standard/premium gene-disease list. https://www.veritasgenetics.com/sites/default/files/media/documents/VG_myGenome_Gene-Disease-List_V1_FINAL_Consumer_05.13.2019.pdf Google Scholar 47. Bertolotto C, Lesueur F, Giuliano S, et al: A SUMOylation-defective MITF germline mutation predisposes to melanoma and renal carcinoma. Nature 480:94-98, 2011 [Erratum: Nature 531:126, 2016] Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 48. Veritas: Let’s get started. https://secure.veritasgenetics.com/checkout/67308 Google Scholar 49. Invitae: Genetic counseling resources at Invitae. https://www.invitae.com/en/individuals/genetic-counseling/ Google Scholar 50. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Genetic counseling: An indispensable step in the genetic testing process. J Oncol Pract 4:96-98, 2008 LinkGoogle Scholar 51. American Society of Clinical Oncology: ASCO releases updated policy statement on genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/asco-releases-updated-policy-statement-genetic-and-genomic Google Scholar 52. Pollack A: The ethics of advice: Conflicts seen when genetic counselors work for test companies. The New York Times 2012;B1 Google Scholar 53. Committee on Ethics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Committee on Genetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG committee opinion No. 410: Ethical issues in genetic testing. Obstet Gynecol 111:1495-1502, 2008 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 54. Marietta C, McGuire AL: Currents in contemporary ethics. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Is it the practice of medicine? J Law Med Ethics 37:369-374, 2009 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar 55. Helix: PerkinElmer GenePrism: Actionable insights informed consent. https://geneprism.helix.com/product-consent Google Scholar
Thu, 09 Dec 2021 18:56:00 -0600 en text/html https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/PO.19.00317
Killexams : Great Hearts Academies - Veritas Prep No result found, try new keyword!High school students take AP® exams and IB exams to earn college credit and demonstrate success at college-level coursework. U.S. News calculated a College Readiness Index based on AP/IB exam ... Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:00:00 -0500 text/html https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/arizona/districts/veritas-preparatory-academy/great-hearts-academies-veritas-prep-892 Killexams : Judge says Erie postmaster can sue Project Veritas for libel over mail-in ballot claims

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include a comment from Project Veritas.

The Erie postmaster wrongly accused of backdating mail-in ballots in the 2020 presidential election can continue his legal effort to clear his name and collect damages in court.

The postmaster, Robert Weisenbach, can proceed with his libel lawsuit against Project Veritas, the conservative activist news organization that reported the unproven claims against him in November 2020 — claims that drew Erie into the national frenzy over the results of the presidential race and Donald Trump's attempt to overturn his defeat.

Erie County Judge Marshall Piccinini has ruled against the preliminary objections of Project Veritas and the other two defendants, allowing Weisenbach's suit to advance to the next stage, the evidence-gathering process known as a discovery, which includes depositions.

Piccinini ruled against Project Veritas; its founder, James O'Keefe; and Richard Hopkins, the now former postal employee who was the source of the claims against Weisenbach.

Project Veritas and the other defendants wanted the lawsuit tossed, claiming that the First Amendment protected Project Veritas' reports on Weisenbach. The defendants are contending, among other things, that the reports constituted opinion rather than fact.

Weisenbach in April 2021 sued Project Veritas, O'Keefe and Hopkins, who characterized Weisenbach as part of an anti-Trump plot to tamper with the mail-in ballots and throw the presidential election to Joe Biden. Weisenbach filed an amended civil complaint in August.

A trial or other resolution is still a long way off, but Piccinini in his ruling said that Weisenbach's claims, at this early point in the case, are "legally sufficient" for the suit to move forward in Erie County Common Pleas Court. He said Weisenbach's claims included adequate information to allege that the defendants acted with real malice, a key element for a plaintiff to prove in libel suits.

Claims and counterclaims:Free speech or libel? Erie postmaster, Project Veritas face off in court over election claims

"Whether Weisenbach will be able to offer adequate evidence to support his claims, and whether a jury would ultimately be willing to credit such evidence after hearing both sides of the story, remains to be seen," Piccinini said in a 58-page opinion filed on Friday.

"For now, it is enough to hold that the averments set forth in the Amended Complaint are sufficient as a matter of law to permit the action to proceed to discovery, where the truth of these claims can begin to be tested in the crucible of our adversarial system."

Piccinini also ruled that the proper jurisdiction of the case is Erie County Common Pleas Court. Hopkins wanted the case against him moved to federal court because he was a federal employee when he made the allegations against Weisenbach, his boss at the Erie General Mail Facility at 2108 E. 38th St. during the election on Nov. 3, 2020.

Constitutional questions

Piccinini based his ruling on court filings and arguments he heard at a three-hour hearing on Jan. 21. Among the defendants' main arguments was that the Project Veritas reports could not be considered defamatory under the First Amendment. Piccinini disagreed.

'The constitutional deck is not all stacked to one side," Piccinini said in his ruling.

He said court decisions — including the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which set precedent for libel suits — "strike a careful balance between the standards of journalistic integrity that a pluralistic society dedicated to a free exchange of ideas must tolerate, and that which it need not. Weisenbach sufficiently avers that this case falls within the latter category."

Going to court:Erie postmaster files lawsuit against mail carrier, Project Veritas over ballot fraud claims

Project Veritas said it is confident it will prevail in the case in the end.

"This is a common procedural ruling, allowing Weisenbach to test his alleged and imagined claims," the press secretary for Project Veritas, R.C. Maxwell, said in a statement. "The ruling does not address the substantive merits of the suit and the judge cautioned that the 'difficulty may come in eventually proving subjective knowledge of falsity or probable falsity by clear and convincing evidence.'

"We welcome the opportunity to show, once again, that Project Veritas was well within its First Amendment rights in reporting this story to the American public and did so ethically. We will win. It will just take longer than it should have. In defamation suits waged against Project Veritas, we remain undefeated."

Weisenbach's legal team includes David Houck, of Pittsburgh, and lawyers with United to Protect Democracy Inc., a New York-based nonprofit that focuses on "advocacy efforts to confront threats to our democracy," according to its website. United to Protect Democracy is part of a group known as Protect Democracy, whose Law for Truth project is helping to pursue the lawsuit against Project Veritas and the other defendants.

"The court’s decision is a victory for Mr. Weisenbach, our system of government, and, more broadly, democracy itself," Protect Democracy said in a statement. "Deliberate lies — and especially lies about elections — undermine government and the functioning of our democracy. They also often inflict grievous harm on victims who've done nothing wrong."

Protect Democracy said it and the legal team "look forward to ensuring that Mr. Weisenbach and his family are made whole for the harm and suffering caused by defendants' lies."

Project Veritas said it is confident it will prevail in the case in the end.

"This is a common procedural ruling, allowing Weisenbach to test his alleged and imagined claims," the press secretary for Project Veritas, R.C. Maxwell, said in a statement. "The ruling does not address the substantive merits of the suit and the judge cautioned that the 'difficulty may come in eventually proving subjective knowledge of falsity or probable falsity by clear and convincing evidence.'

"We welcome the opportunity to show, once again, that Project Veritas was well within its First Amendment rights in reporting this story to the American public and did so ethically. We will win. It will just take longer than it should have. In defamation suits waged against Project Veritas, we remain undefeated."

Claims of a 'whistleblower'

Hopkins first appeared on Project Veritas' reports as an anonymous source on Nov. 5, 2020. He alleged to O'Keefe that on Nov. 4, 2020, he had heard Weisenbach and another supervisor discussing the backdating of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day, Nov, 3, 2020. With Democrats favoring the use of mail-in ballots over Republicans, the allegation was that the backdating had aided Biden over Trump.

Project Veritas, with offices in Westchester County, New York, circulated the claims on its social media platforms, dubbing Hopkins a "whistleblower." Hopkins' claims went viral as Trump and his supporters insisted the election was rigged against him.

Hopkins, still anonymous, also told O'Keefe on Nov. 5, 2020, that Weisenbach wanted the ballots backdated because Weisenbach is "a Trump hater" — an allegation that Weisenbach said is false. He said he voted for Trump, according to the lawsuit.

Mail-in ballots are sorted at the Erie County Courthouse on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the presidential election. Officials found no evidence that mail-in ballots were backdated in Erie County, as Project Veritas alleged through a postal worker.

Initial claims:Conservative group claims mishandled ballots in Erie

On Nov. 6, 2020, the day after the first Project Veritas story ran, an unknown man confronted Weisenbach at his residence, according to the lawsuit. The man left after Millcreek Township police got involved, but Weisenbach and his wife were forced to temporarily abandon their home and take up refuge at a hotel two hours from Erie following the confrontation, according to the lawsuit.

Erie County Judge Marshall Piccinini ruled that a defamation lawsuit against the conservative media outlet Project Veritas can proceed.

Also on Nov. 6, 2020, investigators with the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General interviewed Weisenbach, Hopkins and others. A summary of their report, issued on Feb. 26, said Hopkins recanted his initial allegations. The investigators said Hopkins stated "he had not heard a conversation about ballots at all — rather he saw the Postmaster and Supervisor having a discussion and assumed it was about fraudulent ballot backdating."

USPS probe:Postal Service investigators: No evidence of mail ballot fraud in Erie

After his Nov. 6, 2020, interview with the Postal Service investigators, Hopkins revealed his identity in a new Project Veritas report and defended his claims. After another interview with the Postal Service investigators, on Nov. 9, 2020, he told Project Veritas in a Nov. 11, 2020, report that the investigators intimidated him and that he stood by his original account.

More investigation:Only 2 ballots that arrived late and had Nov. 3 postmark came from Erie postal facility

A day earlier, Nov. 10, 2020, Hopkins posted a video on YouTube declaring that, despite the news reports otherwise, "I did not recant my statements." Trump that day retweeted Hopkins' video and, on a Twitter post, called Hopkins a "brave patriot."

The Postal Service placed Hopkins on unpaid leave on Nov. 10, 2020, saying that "your actions may have placed employees and yourself as well as the reputation of the Postal Service in harm's way," according to a letter to Hopkins that was included in Weisenbach's lawsuit.

Hopkins resigned his job in April 2021, one of his lawyers said after the Jan. 21 hearing before Piccinini.

Weisenbach responds:Erie postmaster calls claims of mishandled ballots '100% false'

'Provably false accusations'

Among the arguments of Weisenbach's lawyers is that Hopkins' allegations appealed to Project Veritas because they fit the organization's "preconceived narrative" — its belief that the election was manipulated against Trump through the mishandling of mail-in ballots.

In reviewing Weisenbach's claims that Project Veritas published false information about him, Piccinini in his ruling discussed Hopkins' allegation that Weisebach was a "Trump hater."

Jan, 6 hearings and the election:OnPolitics: Steven Bannon's contempt trial begins after defying House Jan. 6 committee

Weisenbach, Piccinini said, had sufficiently made a claim that such a statement is a "factual assertion" that Weisenbach contends is "simply untrue." Piccinini referred to September 2020 photos included in the amended lawsuit that showed Weisenbach holding a "Trump: Make America Great Again" flag and another of him wearing a "Trump 2020" face mask, "evincing the provable falsity of Weisenbach's supposed animosity toward President Trump," Piccinini said in his ruling.

"By and large," he also said, "the defamatory statements alleged in the Amended Complaint do not consist of editorial commentary concerning supposed mail fraud at the Erie General Mail Facility or opinion as to the courageousness of the whistleblower, but provably false accusations levied against Weisenbach that he personally directed that mail-in ballots ... be backdated ... and that he did so because he was a 'Trump hater.'"

Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@timesnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ETNpalattella.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Project Veritas denied request to toss Erie postmaster's libel lawsuit

Fri, 22 Jul 2022 23:12:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.yahoo.com/now/judge-says-erie-postmaster-sue-144524907.html
VCS-272 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List