The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country.
The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who actually run the country.
Now that they've started to gain ground, imagine the next steps: they start suing you because your Wi-Fi router is harming them, suing coffee shops and restaurants to remove Wi-Fi hotspots because of the harm it causes them, telecom companies to remove cell towers because it is harmful to them, etc. This will not end well...
Especially if they do get this classified as a disability and start trying to leverage Americans with Disabilities Act.
It's an unfortunate situation for those with the rare conditions; there's a lot more potential profit in finding a way to genetically prevent pain for billions of people than it is to cure the handful with the condition.
This one line in the opening comment rubbed me the wrong way, that some how, the pain and suffering of those billions of people is less important than the handful ill with a rare condition. It's not just crassly about profits, but it's a real ethical dilemma - maybe for the greater good, greatest bang for your research buck, focusing on those billions is a greater benefit to humanity than the small handful with an extremely rare condition. I hate making this statement because I don't want to downplay the severe suffering of those with rare genetic disorders, but I feel the issue is more nuanced than the hand waving the original post does on the trade off.
How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.