Comment: That's not it.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: His last sentence saying she (see in situ)

That's not it.

The public has this faith in genotyping that is undeserved. There was this rigid Dawkin's perspective of heredity, evolution and DNA>RNA>protein dogma pushed so heavily the last decade. It got over simplified (especially by the MSM) to make people literally think genes = phenotype. Worst than that, we're lead to believe things like alcoholism can be a phenotype and it comes from an alcoholism gene. I've spent a fair portion of my life now in biochemistry and I've come to the conclusion that microbiology is complicated (to say the least), our perspectives are always changing (for the better mostly I'd say), and our understanding of the science is mostly through the lens of already entrenched perspectives with varying degrees of individual and institutional bias. Further, how it trickles down to the public's understanding and to the practices of the healthcare industry is a process that's less scrutinized than it ought to be. Whether she'll get cancer from some genetic disposition or not, the decision to preemptively act to treat something that hasn't manifested yet is, to some degree, a question of faith in the "healthcare gods". It is "crazy insane shit" worthy of thought and opinion.