It probably isn't as simple as that, but in this case the downside of failure was nothing more than wasted time while the upside was a possible insight into a d

It probably isn't as simple as that, but in this case the downside of failure was nothing more than wasted time while the upside was a possible insight into a disease that had eluded diagnosis. What is more troubling to me is the part of the article stating that he used this to justify canceling the MRI that had been advised by a doctor. I don't have much of a problem with people looking to unconventional medicine when areas that have been well researched have failed. This is especially true when the unconventional methods might have some basis for working and just haven't been studied enough. The problems often start, however, when people turn away from established medicine in favor of the untested methods. I know that he had reservations about that MRI beforehand, but using the gene sequencing to justify canceling the MRI seems to be a step in the wrong direction.