The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So most of the time we're using something called next generation sequencing which is you know very high level sequencing but it's not whole genome sequencing so you're getting targeted yeah and you're looking mostly at chromosomeal abnormalities unless you know that the couple's a carrier for some genetic mutation that you also want to screen for.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So most of the time we're using something called next generation sequencing which is you know very high level sequencing but it's not whole genome sequencing. So you're getting targeted. Yeah. and you're looking mostly at chromosomeal abnormalities unless you know that the couple is a carrier for some genetic mutation that you also want to screen for.