It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US scientists try 1st gene editing in the body

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Winterpain
a reply to: rickymouse

I agree there is risk, but for so many people there is no choice or current hope.

If the people are willing, I don't see the harm? If it doesn't work, the willing patient may be harmed/killed, but it was there one chance to be normal/healthy and their choice. If it does work, they may be cured, and humanity a step closer to help thousands.

Just my 2 cents.

~Winter


Most gene expression can be altered by diet or changing environmental factors.
Some of the genetic traits cannot be effected by altering things, but most can.


Which has been tried, unfortunately with no effect on Hunters Syndrome. With the normal version, life expectancy is 10-20 years max and includes a host of cognitive and neurological issues in addition to organ failure.

The patient receiving the new gene therapy must have the more mild version if he is 44, but even then, he got little time left. Maybe a decade. There are be marrow transplants and stem cell therapies that can slow the progress of the disease somewhat but it all depends on how early one begins those therapies and they have a limited effectiveness that varies from patient to patient so it can be a real crap shoot.

If they are able to perfect this gene therapy, it could prolong the lives of many suffering children as most people with this mutation sadly don't see adulthood so if one middle aged guy wants to take one for the team in an effort to help the 2000 children around the world, kudos to him.

It may not end well for him and I hope he went into this aware of all the risks and the likely outcome. But what he's doing is a great thing if it helps the kids who may never make it to, let alone graduate from high school.


Medicines they use often work by altering of enzymes or proteins just as can be done by altering the diet. If you eat the wrong foods for your genetics, than the doctor makes money and the pharma companies get more money.


You won't get an argument from me that the average Americans diet is the cause of many of their health woes. It doesn't help that the people least able to get proper interventional medical care are the most vulnerable and at risk from their economic situation.

Even with decent insurance, I've worked jobs where I simply couldn't afford to lose a half day or full day of pay plus company's for the doctor and potential pharmacy trip because those 4-8 hours were the difference between paying my rent or feeding my son.

But I digress from my initial point, when you're poor as hell and barely getting by, you're stuck eating cheap easy processed foods and we know how good those are for you! Add in all of the antibiotics, steroids in meat and on and on and it's a recipe for disaster. As a kid I think I knew one person who was diabetic. Today, it's everywhere and mostly result of diet.




posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Have to say that when i was a child, back in the 80s, there were literally only 2 or 3 overweight children in my primary class of 37 others.

Not attempting to have a pop at overweight people but obviously, something is very, very, wrong or has changed regarding our diet, or what's now in our diet, given the statistics regarding obesity and preventable disease in our youngsters these days.

Seem to be about 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 children are overweight. And that's in bonny Scotland where i have to admit we don't have the best of diets, to begin with.


I also blame the change in the way children play, back in the day, when not at school you went out to play a 9am came back for lunch, and then disappeared until it was getting dark, or until you got hungry, skint a knee, or broke a wrist.

We climbed trees, and building to, built dens, tree houses, played 2 manhunt all over the schemes, fought in the field with makeshift crossbows that fired close pegs that we attached tacks to the top of. Went on bike journeys to the edge of the city and beyond. Essentially sought out adventure, and ofter pain also, just for the sheer hell of it or to alleviate boredom and hone our skills as human beings

Kids do the above these days on also, including my own, but it's on Xbox and PS4, trust me when i tell you that something is lost in translation.

I might be getting old, 42 now, but its beginning to feel a bit like back then society build a better grade of person. Certainly one more capable, or so it seems to me.

Rant over. LoL



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I'm only a couple of years older than you and despite being on opposite sides of the Atlantic, it would seem we had pretty similar childhoods. Same thing here... We rode our bikes all day, when it got dark we played hide and go seek until the street lights came on, played in the woods and walked or biked everywhere. Life pre internet is a completely foreign and un-relatable concept that my kids just can't grasp. When my daughter is done with her homework, she would rather go on an iPad and watch videos or play xbox than go outside. Which is a shame because part if the reason. I bought a house where I did, with the sized property we have, was so that my kids could get to grow up sort of like I did. My 15 year old son ironically, is the one always bugging her to go outside and he will spend hours out there by himself and his "project" this past summer was building a fort out back and going through my anthropology books learning about flint knapping to make his own tools. He is however, by far the minority when compared to most kids his age. Im starting to feel lime the old guy yelling at kids to get off my lawn haha I wonder if this is how my parent felt when I stopped pursuing my Masters to play music?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
If I were in the situation of trying it or living only a few short years more, I think I would seriously consider it. Tests have to done on humans to further the research. I wish it wasn't this way but it is. Those who are the first could potentially open the door to saving millions of lives.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I would expect a noticeable increase in E.T. activity....like after "the kids found the matches" concerning atom splitting.

Just saying.

All conspiracy theories aside, this could absolutely change the world. Not only ridding us of disease, but think of the enhancement factor to our current abilities! No, not X-Men mutant powers, lol...but you could very well say that we would be mutants if this is successful.

I'm quite excited! I think I'll make some s'mores!



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Wow, it's like it's a curse and a blessing to live in the time we do...... Bless those who volunteer to be the first to try this new technology and I wish them the absolute best.

-Alee



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Most of them will probably be terminally ill or it will be in the post.

A chance is a chance, especially when you do not have one good luck to them, and gods speed.

As to the ethics involved, the only people that will be against such probably are not terminally ill, or let religion somewhat skewer there view and opinion.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Most of them will probably be terminally ill or it will be in the post.

A chance is a chance, especially when you do not have one good luck to them, and gods speed.

As to the ethics involved, the only people that will be against such probably are not terminally ill, or let religion somewhat skewer there view and opinion.


I do agree that is the most likely case!

I wonder/hope if this could one day help children with Apraxia of Speech or other things like Autism etc....

-Alee



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Winterpain
a reply to: rickymouse

I agree there is risk, but for so many people there is no choice or current hope.

If the people are willing, I don't see the harm? If it doesn't work, the willing patient may be harmed/killed, but it was there one chance to be normal/healthy and their choice. If it does work, they may be cured, and humanity a step closer to help thousands.

Just my 2 cents.

~Winter


Most gene expression can be altered by diet or changing environmental factors.
Some of the genetic traits cannot be effected by altering things, but most can.


Which has been tried, unfortunately with no effect on Hunters Syndrome. With the normal version, life expectancy is 10-20 years max and includes a host of cognitive and neurological issues in addition to organ failure.

The patient receiving the new gene therapy must have the more mild version if he is 44, but even then, he got little time left. Maybe a decade. There are be marrow transplants and stem cell therapies that can slow the progress of the disease somewhat but it all depends on how early one begins those therapies and they have a limited effectiveness that varies from patient to patient so it can be a real crap shoot.

If they are able to perfect this gene therapy, it could prolong the lives of many suffering children as most people with this mutation sadly don't see adulthood so if one middle aged guy wants to take one for the team in an effort to help the 2000 children around the world, kudos to him.

It may not end well for him and I hope he went into this aware of all the risks and the likely outcome. But what he's doing is a great thing if it helps the kids who may never make it to, let alone graduate from high school.


Medicines they use often work by altering of enzymes or proteins just as can be done by altering the diet. If you eat the wrong foods for your genetics, than the doctor makes money and the pharma companies get more money.


You won't get an argument from me that the average Americans diet is the cause of many of their health woes. It doesn't help that the people least able to get proper interventional medical care are the most vulnerable and at risk from their economic situation.

Even with decent insurance, I've worked jobs where I simply couldn't afford to lose a half day or full day of pay plus company's for the doctor and potential pharmacy trip because those 4-8 hours were the difference between paying my rent or feeding my son.

But I digress from my initial point, when you're poor as hell and barely getting by, you're stuck eating cheap easy processed foods and we know how good those are for you! Add in all of the antibiotics, steroids in meat and on and on and it's a recipe for disaster. As a kid I think I knew one person who was diabetic. Today, it's everywhere and mostly result of diet.


With Hunters disease, there is a completely missing enzyme. They can give the person the enzyme in conjunction with lowering the type of sugar that is causing the problem. It does not cure the disease, the disease is caused by a hereditary factor where the enzyme is not properly made.

I can buy a big chicken frozen for about a buck a pound. I get a big pot of soup out of the chicken from the bones and some meat scraps and also I can feed four people and have enough left over for lunch the next day from the roasted or baked chicken. I make real home fries or just mashed potatoes and gravy to go with it and throw in a half a bag of frozen veggies and boil them or just some carrots.

So what does that cost, six bucks for the chicken, fifty cents celery, a buck for potatoes and butter, a half buck for miscellaneous spices and thickeners and some onion.. A buck at most for the IGA frozen veggies and fifty cents worth of noodles. Some veggies for the soup cost about a buck. Stuffing runs about a buck. Add that up. It is less than twelve bucks for a big supper, a moderate lunch, a big pot of chicken soup. That would be about twelve bucks a day's worth of meals for a family of four. That is a cheap meal and you cannot eat chicken all the time. The wife and I live on around three hundred bucks a month worth of food, we eat grass fed organic beef and we do not eat much junk food, that total includes going out for an all you can eat fish fry once a month and occasionally having stuff liked fish sticks and high quality breaded chicken chunks for GFS, they run about twenty four bucks for four pounds. I also make our own breads and lots of soups and bring soups and rolls to the kids for their families. We have an occasional ham, when they are less than a buck ten a pound, and we make scalloped potato and ham out of the leftovers. We make potato and leak soup and fish and potato soup, kalla Moyaka, maybe once a month. We just made two huge taco pizzas yesterday, the second is for today. It cost about six bucks for the grass fed beef, about a buck for the crusts, and a buck for the lettuce and tomato and a buck for the sauces and about a buck and a half for the cheese. That is about six bucks a sixteen inch pizza for a more healthy pizza than from the store or restaurant.

We buy when things are on sale, we stock foods instead of going out and buying them as we need them and impulse buy because you are going every day. We have found that if you do it right, you can eat healthy for cheaper than eating junk food. But it does take time to prepare meals. It also requires doing a lot more dishes which it seems most people do not want to do nowadays.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
And when he knocks up his mistress with triplets and she runs away never telling anyone who the father is, the new DNA with all its silent side effects of reproduction will be loosed on the future generations possibly resulting in mutations to the human race that we can’t even attempt to predict right now let alone ever try and fix?

Maybe it would be smart to play with this type of technology in sample groups that have been made sterile for a while before sharing the side effects with future generations?

I don’t know, just my imagination running away with me I guess.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Autism comes under rather an expansive umbrella these days. Its also probably responsible for producing savants and the like.

True autistics see the world in ways we cannot hope to ever achieve. Personally, i imagine Autism as more a product of society rather than a true genetic disorder.

Might not be something to fix but rather embrace and try to fully understand.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Quauhtli

Whats wrong with mutations?

Mutations are how evolution moves forward.

Don't matter if we are smart enough, if we can do a thing it generally follows that we will.

Take atomics for instance, do you really think humanity is smart enough to be playing with those?


edit on 16-11-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: peter vlar

Have to say that when i was a child, back in the 80s, there were literally only 2 or 3 overweight children in my primary class of 37 others.

Not attempting to have a pop at overweight people but obviously, something is very, very, wrong or has changed regarding our diet, or what's now in our diet, given the statistics regarding obesity and preventable disease in our youngsters these days.

Seem to be about 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 children are overweight. And that's in bonny Scotland where i have to admit we don't have the best of diets, to begin with.


I also blame the change in the way children play, back in the day, when not at school you went out to play a 9am came back for lunch, and then disappeared until it was getting dark, or until you got hungry, skint a knee, or broke a wrist.

We climbed trees, and building to, built dens, tree houses, played 2 manhunt all over the schemes, fought in the field with makeshift crossbows that fired close pegs that we attached tacks to the top of. Went on bike journeys to the edge of the city and beyond. Essentially sought out adventure, and ofter pain also, just for the sheer hell of it or to alleviate boredom and hone our skills as human beings

Kids do the above these days on also, including my own, but it's on Xbox and PS4, trust me when i tell you that something is lost in translation.

I might be getting old, 42 now, but its beginning to feel a bit like back then society build a better grade of person. Certainly one more capable, or so it seems to me.

Rant over. LoL


I know what causes the difference. We had really bad diets back in the 1970's, with bacon, eggs and sausages for breakfast (The word Cholesterol was unknown back then). But everyone lived in villages and streets in the cities, all within walking distance of shops and schools. Playing fields were open until 10pm in the Summer evenings. School playgrounds were large enough for students to run around in. The supply of council housing and distribution of jobs across the country meant there was no housing pressure.

But then everything changed once councils houses were sold off. The main problem being the councils didn't have all the money needed to upgrade council housing to modern standards. Council homes were originally single layer brick, single glazing, no gas central heating, uninsulated or with asbestos insulation and ceiling cover. Basic bare bones structures that would accumulate mold and condensation. Once privately owned, the owner could add cladding, double glazing, central heating, air extraction fans to the bathroom, roof insulation, and at the same time add an extension or two, convert the garage into another room. All this would add another £200K to the value of the home. So what was originally a £80K home, now becomes £300K. Some council housing were cottages, farm houses, bungalows as well as semi-detached properties. They have added value from being on their own land, surrounded by countryside or within 5 minutes of walking. That now prices them out of the next generation of first time buyers. NIMBY's will also object to anything being built nearby that blocks their "views" or even more city developments that "increase road traffic on already congested roads". They and the councils will object to anything that would reduce house prices - higher standards, increased size.

So the only solution for property developers is to buy a farm field in the middle of nowhere, build a development of 20 properties around a cul-de-sac with a narrow access road and no pavements or even pavements on just one side of the road. Sometimes the pavements don't even join up on different segments of the same road. Then the only way to get anywhere is to drive by car, and the tiny gardens and homes mean that children can only play indoors on console games.
Houses in Canada and Norway would have a children's den in the basement as well as Victorian sized bedrooms.




top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join