Thanks for the reply!

On your point about cancer and CRISPR, I meant to add a link back to Curating the Internet: Science and technology digest for January 30, 2020 when I got done summarizing, but it was a long article, and it slipped my mind at the end. That post included something similar to what you're talking about, a Immune discovery 'may treat all cancer'.

It doesn't really contradict the author's advocacy for medical conservatism, though. Something like that would almost certainly have clear benefits and strong evidence. And I thought that the perspective on screening is important.

On corruption, as-is typical of mainstream scientists, the article actually focused far more on corruption between doctors and big-pharma, but I agree with your perspective that at the core the USG programs are what make that corruption possible.

On eugenics, you're probably right that Dawkins was intentionally stirring the pot. I can't think of many other reasons to make that statement with such controversial phrasing... or even, really, to make it at all.