Actually, if you look at how Color has specifically called out most of the risks in their material, they very carefully focus on life-time risks, instead of 'ra

Actually, if you look at how Color has specifically called out most of the risks in their material, they very carefully focus on life-time risks, instead of 'rates'. So, unless they are completely lying with their numbers, you can actually look at their 'risk' rates in the naive way. For example, the BRCA mutations actually result in a 2-3 fold increase in life time risk in breast cancer (in women), resulting in a 50 to 80% (depending on what study you trust) life time risk in breast cancer. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/) It's kind of weird, but also kind of obvious. Color is choosing to focus on only the highest correlation/impact mutations. They also require physician buy in on every test they sell. Because of that, they're really just going to focus on the blockbluster genes, the ones which we actually have evidence of high life-time risk. I mean seriously, their BRCA tests by themselves should sell this test - $250 USD is very affordable as far as genetic tests go. Oh, and hilariously, Color chose to spend some time/space to focus on BRCA (rightfully so, it's one of the great validating cases of the power of genomics and the potential for personalized medicine) without talking about one of the reasons why BRCA tests were kind of stagnant for 20 years was cause BRCA1 and BRCA2 (the genes) were patented, along with any diagnostics involving the those genes.