What Could Possibly Go Wrong?


Except I didn’t say that, you built up a straw man just so you could burn it down. Please argue in good faith or at least endeavor to troll more entertainingly.

@magnet: Supposedly it has potential to work for a bunch of stuff. I’m not a doctor, I just read sensationalist news articles, but my brother is a GI and he says it’s promising.

And just to be clear, I hope nobody read my post and immediately took their turkey baster out of the dishwasher with a gleam in their eye.


Review again. You said it was mostly drugs. It’s right there. I said it’s way more than drugs as in more involved than drugs, by like a lot. You can get those drugs to almost zero and you would still pay a lot. You’re misrepresenting not only the influence of drugs in the process but my point that you’re doing it by doing your strawman dance. If anyone isn’t arguing in good faith, it’s the person that made a completely false claim and then got pissy when called on it.


Only in the mind of someone trying to win an argument through bad faith is “a lot of the price is the drugs” equivalent to “it’s mostly drugs”.


Oh really, so in your world what is a lot? Are you trying to claim that a lot somehow equates to say less than half? If it’s less than half, it’s not a lot.


I like where this discussion is going. Lets pivot slightly.

Describe for me, in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.


Wait. You wash it first? Damn.


A wuss using a baster, just freehand that shit.


I mean, I imagined people putting it in the dishwasher after Thanksgiving, then pulling it out and sticking it in their anus. These are the sorts of scenarios I think about.


Is it normal for your buddy to struggle so much as you use the turkey baster to suck the poop out of him? It’s really stressful for me.


I think I like it better when we say violent things about Trump and McConnel.


You need better friends. A true bro would allow you to suck poop out of his sphincter.


I know, right?


I’m pretty sure this thread has meta’d itself. “What could possibly go wrong in a forum thread?” We could have a few respected members get into a Internet back-and-forth no-one-can-win-this argument for a few pages, then start talking about trading poop via turkey baster!


Why do you hate scientific progress? You some kind of poop communist?


We need to seize the means of poop production.


But what about those of you who don’t eat lettuce? Certainly that will impact national productivity.

This romaine sickness outbreak was at a horrible time really.


Carpe anus!


I did that years ago. It’s why I have to eat lettuce.


I wasn’t aware of this case so looked it up.

In the 1990s scientists such as himself, he explains, were too caught up in the promise of gene therapy to realize that they did not know enough about it to warrant human testing. “We were drawn into the simplicity of the concept. You just put the gene in,” Wilson says.

The trial he conducted tested the safety of a therapy for ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, a rare disorder in which the liver lacks a functional copy of the OTC gene. The defect prevents the body from eliminating ammonia, a toxic breakdown product of protein metabolism. The Penn scientists had engineered a weakened adenovirus, or cold virus, to deliver a normal copy of the OTC gene into the liver.

And CRISPR has made it easy to play with genes. Fortunately the recent blow-back indicates that most of the medical community realizes that we don’t know enough for human genetic editing.

Ironically OTC deficiency sounds like a good candidate for prevention via genetic editing: it’s caused by genetic defects in the X chromosome. Genetic testing of potential parents could detect risk for the disease and then children could be conceived using IVF with genetically engineered cells.


…we now know that one of the twins also has some cells where one copy of the gene wasn’t edited at all , meaning this twin has thus taken on the risks of gene editing without the supposed benefit of HIV protection.

I’ll summarize another fact. He was only able to test 80-90% of the genome to make sure it hadn’t thrown those changes around other areas outside of CCR5. Because of the mosaic nature of embryonic cells, this “sampling” is not remotely close to the 80-90% of claimed (something he conveniently left out). Not even sure if he only did genomic (as in only actual genes) or full chromosomal sequencing. If he only did genomic, he conveniently left out 99% of the DNA including important sequences like transcription regulatory regions.

Something else to ponder:

He managed to perfectly time the birth of these kids for paper submission and presentation at this huge conference, just 5 miles from his work. Science doesn’t work around conference schedules.

University of Wisconsin bioethicist Alta Charo said, “Having listened to Dr. He, I can only conclude that this was misguided, premature, unnecessary, and largely useless.”