In a society where people were treated reasonably, the only value of genetic testing would come from the provision of accurate information which leads to a meaningful increase in understanding. In the case of CFS: 'these results indicate a propensity for these problems which can cause disabling fatigue'. In a society where quackery is politically powerful, and often inflicted upon those with diagnoses like CFS by those with power and authority, even genetic testing without real explanatory power could still be of use as a way of supporting narratives helpful to patients. If a doctor with power over a patient's ability to access disability benefits is unreasonably claiming that the disability in CFS results from deconditioning and can be reversed by exercise, then a meaningless genetic test which has been misinterpreted to allow a claim of objective evidence of genetic problems which lead to disabling fatigue, then this could help one avoid absolute poverty. There is a danger that taking such a pragmatic approach will lead to patients being treated even more dismissively once it has been properly assessed. Quackery useful to those in a position of weakness seems to be less well tolerated than quackery useful to those in positions of power. In the long run I think that pragmatic approaches almost always end up favouring those already in positions of power.