"...I believe we are on the cusp of revolutionary advanced in genomic diagnosis and treatment where instead of population based decisions, we will be able to tailor it to an individual's specific disease"

I think so too. There are so many problems with statistics. I read a fascinating article some years ago by one doctor, with an undergrad B.A. in mathematics, who questioned whether medical protocol based on old studies was even valid given the nature of statistics and the pattern of a 'reversion to the mean.' His point being that so many recommendations are based on 'recent studies' which, he believed, would likely yield totally different results if redone several times. Which is of course expensive and time-consuming, therefore not frequently done. I like Stephen Jay Gould's view of stats as 'useful abstractions.'

Gould was diagnosed with a rare, very aggressive cancer in his early 30s. Basically a 'death sentence.' He read every relevant study he could find and the data was both sparse and of inferior quality. So he decided to create his own recovery plan.

The former New York Time science writer, Natalie Angier, included the story in her book The Canon and here's a Wikipedia excerpt about that:

"In July 1982 Gould was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer affecting the abdominal lining (the peritoneum). This cancer is frequently found in people who have ingested or inhaled asbestos fibers, a mineral which was used in the construction of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. After a difficult two-year recovery, Gould published a column for Discover magazine titled "The Median Isn't the Message", which discusses his reaction to reading that "mesothelioma is incurable, with a median mortality of only eight months after discovery." In his essay, he describes the actual significance behind this fact, and his relief upon recognizing that statistical averages are useful abstractions, and by themselves do not encompass "our actual world of variation, shadings, and continua.' "

Genetic testing gave me odds of recurrence, for a different condition, of 3-5% within 9 years. That's versus the industry best-guess of 35-45% 'on average.' The test involved is considered the current gold standard and the results, after a talk with a senior scientist there, were reassuring. Since a 'do nothing' path still left me with the 3% odds of recurrence within 9 years, I skipped very toxic meds as the 2 percentage points better odds weren't sufficiently persuasive versus other quality of health and life issues. Genetic testing separated me from the overall 'average' by identifying me as in a different Venn diagram as I see it. And am thankful for it.