Medicine 2.0's misjudgment of risks is exemplified by the case of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women. Before the results of the Women’s Health Initiative Study (WHI) emerged in 2002, HRT was widely accepted. However, the WHI study, involving thousands of older women, found a 24 percent relative increase in breast cancer risk among those on HRT. This led to widespread condemnation of HRT as cancer-inducing, virtually making it taboo.

Despite the alarming 24 percent risk increase, the absolute risk rise for breast cancer in the HRT group was minimal. Only one additional case per thousand women was observed compared to those not on HRT. However, this small absolute risk hike was considered enough to outweigh any potential benefits, leaving menopausal women facing symptoms like hot flashes and night sweats, alongside risks like bone density loss and Alzheimer's disease.

Medicine 2.0 hastily discards therapies like HRT based on single studies, rather than delving into the complexities. Medicine 3.0, on the other hand, considers such studies while acknowledging their limitations and biases. It questions whether the benefits of HRT might still outweigh the risks for individual patients, taking into account their unique symptoms and factors, unlike the study participants who were largely asymptomatic and well past menopause.

Furthermore, the current healthcare system's business model doesn't align with promoting longevity and healthspan. There's little reimbursement for preventive interventions, with most funding directed towards treatment after diagnosis. This shortsightedness not only condemns people to suffering in old age but also risks financial strain on the healthcare system in the long run.