I understand your points, but I stand by what I’ve written here. That’s the problem with statistics and probability — a 1% a priori risk is meaningless to the the individual that experienced the fatality. Different data inform the conclusion: a priori vs. a posteriori. That’s my point, which, I think, is the same as yours: underrepresentation drowns out rare events and amplifies common events. This is all part of the problem with Gaussian statistics that pervades medicine.

Also, I agree that the idea of personalized medicine isn’t new, but with the better understanding of context we have now, we’ll never have truly personalized medicine that’s perfect. It’s not possible given the complexity of the biological systems involved.

My overall point is that when people hear that some new drug cuts heart attacks by 50% in a major study, that doesn’t mean it will do that for them, and that doesn’t mean that’s the real (or only possible) effect of the drug.