37 replies to this topic

[PeaceAndProsperity]

http://bioviva-scien...st-human-aging/

"Elizabeth Parrish, CEO of Bioviva USA Inc. has become the first human being to be successfully rejuvenated by gene therapy, after her own company’s experimental therapies reversed 20 years of normal telomere shortening."

Any thoughts on this statement in particular?

 

To me she clearly does not appear to be any younger than she actually is. She looks to be 40-something. 

Hear facial muscles are overdeveloped, which is probably due to higher levels of dihydrotestosterone, which is very normal for woman who reach into their 40s and older.

Her hair and skin also do not appear to be "shining" or "soft." At first you'd think that the hair looks to be pretty good, but one has to take into consideration that female hormones positively impact skin and hair, and hers is no better than a menopausal (estrogen deficient) woman.

 

The fact that she does not appear to be under 40 even though her telomere age should be around 20 is stunning, since men in their 70s who use various telomerase-activating chemicals can notice a clear increase in their skin quality within a month or less.

 

[elfanjo]

Telomerase activation might not impact oxydative stress, DNA mutations, or else..
Clearly this therapy is adressing only one aspect of aging (well two in her case).

Tbh the only thing we know is that telomeres from her t-lymphocytes where impacted.
It has been a year since she had these therapies, we should start seeing numbers coming. Or should we?

Edited by elfanjo, 12 July 2016 - 12:14 PM.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Telomerase activation might not impact oxydative stress, DNA mutations, or else..
Clearly this therapy is adressing only one aspect of aging (well two in her case).

Tbh the only thing we know is that telomeres from her t-lymphocytes where impacted.
It has been a year since she had these therapies, we should start seeing numbers coming. Or should we?

There is talk that overexpression of telomerase in liver cells is destructive to the liver. For this and other reasons, one might think that the therapy was only applied to her white blood cells for her own safety. 

 

To me, the statement "has become the first human being to be successfully rejuvenated by gene therapy" implies that it's her whole body and not just her white blood cells.

 

Am I also the only one to be surprised at how much she covers her body during interviews, considering the therapies she's supposed to have had? Why not show more of the legs, since the follistatin-increasing therapy is injected into the legs (and elsewhere) and the MRI she had of her muscle was on her leg - if I remember right.

She said in one of the recent interviews that she hasn't been exercising because she's been busy. That to me sounds like an excuse for her lack of muscle mass (but perhaps the follistatin therapy is not that externally noticeable).

[elfanjo]

This is where I agree, the whole thing seems rather strange, if not suspicious..
The fact that they are not disclosing any number does't help (again they might have good reasons for that).

Wait and see..

[corb]

I've never hidden my skepticism about telomerase therapies, so even if I say "I told you so" some people would think I'm simply a paid government shill here to hide the truth from the good peoples!

 

Aaaanyway, let's see what she has to say on raadfest.

It's been an year, and I'm expecting more than sappy stories at this point.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

This is an interesting new (judging by upload date) video

Bill sure does look pretty good for his age, I think.

[Nate-2004]

If we have any contacts with BioViva on the LongeCity board I'd love to know whether there will be more extensive trials and I'm sure everyone would love to know how we can get in on them.

 

I e-mailed them regarding my situation with ET. Hoping at least they could look at trials for treatment of neurodegenerative disorders. It looks like they may be taking the route of cosmetic surgery for treatment of aging around skin appearance.

 

This all sounds very promising.

Edited by Nate-2004, 22 July 2016 - 05:21 AM.

[dz93]

If I may play Devils Advocate here;

 

Here's a quote from a reddit post:

 

"Don't believe the hype, the company's building is the CEO's house, which she probably did for tax reasons, furthermore, when it happened almost all of her scientific advisory board left their positions.

Furthermore, the CEO, Liz Parrish, who is the only employee of the company, is a former manager at some computer science company. This is all a sham for publicity and for money, which she has certainly raked in since from this.

Noone in the scientific community actually believes she did it, and even if she did, the method she did it in will see damn near no effects since she just had a plasmid, probably with the wrong promoter too, assembled in a simple adeno virus, with a one shot treatment, the amount of cells that probably recieved anything will probably do nothing with it anyways as the gene will get methylated.

TL;DR: The CEO is a con artist.

EDIT: I am going to interject here with a link to the bloomberg company overview (which is always a great read for companies that you have odd questions on): http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686

Please pay attention to the address, google maps and streetview it. And as for another interesting point:http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686 Alex Salinas Director of Marketing for Latin America, BioViva USA Inc.

EDIT: The two groups that are claiming they analyzed her cells, which are t-lymphocytes, known to have differing telomere lengths, are HEALES and biogerontology research foundation, heales.org and bgrf.info, both have the same staff/board. Its literally two groups of the same exact people verifying it. Furthermore, the first lab to perform the experiments on her telomere lengths is Spectracell, which is currently in lawsuits for scamming patients, and going over their website its hard to believe someone actually fell for it. They have a medical test named MTHFR, literally MOTHER F***ER."

 

https://www.reddit.c...ere_any/d5b13tv

 

[Nate-2004]

If I may play Devils Advocate here;

 

Here's a quote from a reddit post:

 

"Don't believe the hype, the company's building is the CEO's house, which she probably did for tax reasons, furthermore, when it happened almost all of her scientific advisory board left their positions.

Furthermore, the CEO, Liz Parrish, who is the only employee of the company, is a former manager at some computer science company. This is all a sham for publicity and for money, which she has certainly raked in since from this.

Noone in the scientific community actually believes she did it, and even if she did, the method she did it in will see damn near no effects since she just had a plasmid, probably with the wrong promoter too, assembled in a simple adeno virus, with a one shot treatment, the amount of cells that probably recieved anything will probably do nothing with it anyways as the gene will get methylated.

TL;DR: The CEO is a con artist.

EDIT: I am going to interject here with a link to the bloomberg company overview (which is always a great read for companies that you have odd questions on): http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686

Please pay attention to the address, google maps and streetview it. And as for another interesting point:http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686 Alex Salinas Director of Marketing for Latin America, BioViva USA Inc.

EDIT: The two groups that are claiming they analyzed her cells, which are t-lymphocytes, known to have differing telomere lengths, are HEALES and biogerontology research foundation, heales.org and bgrf.info, both have the same staff/board. Its literally two groups of the same exact people verifying it. Furthermore, the first lab to perform the experiments on her telomere lengths is Spectracell, which is currently in lawsuits for scamming patients, and going over their website its hard to believe someone actually fell for it. They have a medical test named MTHFR, literally MOTHER F***ER."

 

https://www.reddit.c...ere_any/d5b13tv

 

Wow this is some seriously disappointing news. Her website even has a testimonial quote from Aubrey De Grey and a list of employees that have quite the credentials and she's got the Methuselah foundation posting articles about her. Even George Church is on her board according to that link on Bloomberg.

 

That said, a lot of startups begin at home, the company was only just founded last year.  The fact that the address is a house is the least of concerns as it's typically to save on the costs of huge overhead expenses like office space and yes, maybe taxes.

 

The Spectracell thing and the fact that the same groups of people are verifying are more disconcerting than whether she tested on herself or whether she's getting tax benefits.

Edited by Nate-2004, 22 July 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[dz93]

 

If I may play Devils Advocate here;

 

Here's a quote from a reddit post:

 

"Don't believe the hype, the company's building is the CEO's house, which she probably did for tax reasons, furthermore, when it happened almost all of her scientific advisory board left their positions.

Furthermore, the CEO, Liz Parrish, who is the only employee of the company, is a former manager at some computer science company. This is all a sham for publicity and for money, which she has certainly raked in since from this.

Noone in the scientific community actually believes she did it, and even if she did, the method she did it in will see damn near no effects since she just had a plasmid, probably with the wrong promoter too, assembled in a simple adeno virus, with a one shot treatment, the amount of cells that probably recieved anything will probably do nothing with it anyways as the gene will get methylated.

TL;DR: The CEO is a con artist.

EDIT: I am going to interject here with a link to the bloomberg company overview (which is always a great read for companies that you have odd questions on): http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686

Please pay attention to the address, google maps and streetview it. And as for another interesting point:http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686 Alex Salinas Director of Marketing for Latin America, BioViva USA Inc.

EDIT: The two groups that are claiming they analyzed her cells, which are t-lymphocytes, known to have differing telomere lengths, are HEALES and biogerontology research foundation, heales.org and bgrf.info, both have the same staff/board. Its literally two groups of the same exact people verifying it. Furthermore, the first lab to perform the experiments on her telomere lengths is Spectracell, which is currently in lawsuits for scamming patients, and going over their website its hard to believe someone actually fell for it. They have a medical test named MTHFR, literally MOTHER F***ER."

 

https://www.reddit.c...ere_any/d5b13tv

 

Wow this is some seriously disappointing news. Her website even has a testimonial quote from Aubrey De Grey and a list of employees that have quite the credentials and she's got the Methuselah foundation posting articles about her. Even George Church is on her board according to that link on Bloomberg.

 

 

I'd like to mention that I'm staying objective here. I just thought I'd post that information to give others a different view of things. I'm not trying to throw off discussion or stir up any arguments. 

[Nate-2004]

 

 

If I may play Devils Advocate here;

 

Here's a quote from a reddit post:

 

"Don't believe the hype, the company's building is the CEO's house, which she probably did for tax reasons, furthermore, when it happened almost all of her scientific advisory board left their positions.

Furthermore, the CEO, Liz Parrish, who is the only employee of the company, is a former manager at some computer science company. This is all a sham for publicity and for money, which she has certainly raked in since from this.

Noone in the scientific community actually believes she did it, and even if she did, the method she did it in will see damn near no effects since she just had a plasmid, probably with the wrong promoter too, assembled in a simple adeno virus, with a one shot treatment, the amount of cells that probably recieved anything will probably do nothing with it anyways as the gene will get methylated.

TL;DR: The CEO is a con artist.

EDIT: I am going to interject here with a link to the bloomberg company overview (which is always a great read for companies that you have odd questions on): http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686

Please pay attention to the address, google maps and streetview it. And as for another interesting point:http://www.bloomberg...capId=302346686 Alex Salinas Director of Marketing for Latin America, BioViva USA Inc.

EDIT: The two groups that are claiming they analyzed her cells, which are t-lymphocytes, known to have differing telomere lengths, are HEALES and biogerontology research foundation, heales.org and bgrf.info, both have the same staff/board. Its literally two groups of the same exact people verifying it. Furthermore, the first lab to perform the experiments on her telomere lengths is Spectracell, which is currently in lawsuits for scamming patients, and going over their website its hard to believe someone actually fell for it. They have a medical test named MTHFR, literally MOTHER F***ER."

 

https://www.reddit.c...ere_any/d5b13tv

 

Wow this is some seriously disappointing news. Her website even has a testimonial quote from Aubrey De Grey and a list of employees that have quite the credentials and she's got the Methuselah foundation posting articles about her. Even George Church is on her board according to that link on Bloomberg.

 

 

I'd like to mention that I'm staying objective here. I just thought I'd post that information to give others a different view of things. I'm not trying to throw off discussion or stir up any arguments. 

 

 

That's ok, I'm still open minded about the possibilities with this. Hopefully they are legit and not a future scandal. That would set things back a bit.

 

I also found this related article.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Can telomere length surpass the "maximum" (15 thousand bases)? If so, what happens?

I've read the use of the term "hyper-long telomeres." I wonder what it means specifically in terms of length.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

If follistatin overexpression reduces follicle stimulating hormone, doesn't that lead to lower test., etc. levels in men? I must be missing something here but Wikipedia writes "An earlier name for the same protein was FSH-suppressing protein (FSP)".

[corb]

Can telomere length surpass the "maximum" (15 thousand bases)? If so, what happens?

I've read the use of the term "hyper-long telomeres." I wonder what it means specifically in terms of length.

 

Human cancer cells exceed it easily. They have 100kbs and longer.

Inbred animals exceed it as well. It doesn't affect them in a positive or negative way as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia...i/Mega-telomere

The wiki article for a change seems to have most of the useful papers cited. I suspect because no one has shown significant interest in this since the early 2000s.

 

Most newer papers are about cancer.

The recent Maria Blasco paper talked about mice with up to 50kbs which is about 3.5 times longer than the typical mice telomere. As far as I know they didn't say the mice lived longer. They would've noticed if the difference was significant long before the mice reach maximum lifespan so best case scenario there is a detectable difference but nothing amazing.

There's going to be a follow up on that paper eventually so you'll get a definitive answer sooner rather than later.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

 

Can telomere length surpass the "maximum" (15 thousand bases)? If so, what happens?

I've read the use of the term "hyper-long telomeres." I wonder what it means specifically in terms of length.

 

Human cancer cells exceed it easily. They have 100kbs and longer.

Inbred animals exceed it as well. It doesn't affect them in a positive or negative way as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia...i/Mega-telomere

The wiki article for a change seems to have most of the useful papers cited. I suspect because no one has shown significant interest in this since the early 2000s.

 

Most newer papers are about cancer.

The recent Maria Blasco paper talked about mice with up to 50kbs which is about 3.5 times longer than the typical mice telomere. As far as I know they didn't say the mice lived longer. They would've noticed if the difference was significant long before the mice reach maximum lifespan so best case scenario there is a detectable difference but nothing amazing.

There's going to be a follow up on that paper eventually so you'll get a definitive answer sooner rather than later.

 

Since all newly created humans (i.e. fosters) have 15k in length, doesn't this suggest that there is some mechanism for stopping the elongation of the telomere length to prevent it increasing above that limit? Perhaps cancer cells have mutations that stop this protective mechanism from working.

 

It seems to me that the longer the DNA is, the bigger the problem when it comes to DNA replication, and thus perhaps mega telomeres could cause problems with DNA replication. Or maybe my reasoning is wrong.

[Nate-2004]

 

 

Can telomere length surpass the "maximum" (15 thousand bases)? If so, what happens?

I've read the use of the term "hyper-long telomeres." I wonder what it means specifically in terms of length.

 

Human cancer cells exceed it easily. They have 100kbs and longer.

Inbred animals exceed it as well. It doesn't affect them in a positive or negative way as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia...i/Mega-telomere

The wiki article for a change seems to have most of the useful papers cited. I suspect because no one has shown significant interest in this since the early 2000s.

 

Most newer papers are about cancer.

The recent Maria Blasco paper talked about mice with up to 50kbs which is about 3.5 times longer than the typical mice telomere. As far as I know they didn't say the mice lived longer. They would've noticed if the difference was significant long before the mice reach maximum lifespan so best case scenario there is a detectable difference but nothing amazing.

There's going to be a follow up on that paper eventually so you'll get a definitive answer sooner rather than later.

 

Since all newly created humans (i.e. fosters) have 15k in length, doesn't this suggest that there is some mechanism for stopping the elongation of the telomere length to prevent it increasing above that limit? Perhaps cancer cells have mutations that stop this protective mechanism from working.

 

It seems to me that the longer the DNA is, the bigger the problem when it comes to DNA replication, and thus perhaps mega telomeres could cause problems with DNA replication. Or maybe my reasoning is wrong.

 

 

Whenever I read about telomeres it is always repeated that yes telomeres shorten with age and limit cell divisions but the problem with longer telomeres is that cancer also has longer telomeres. Well... so what? Why is that relevant? If you lengthen the telomeres of healthy cells is that not a good thing? Does it risk converting them somehow into cancer cells?

 

It's like: "You know who else liked peanut butter? Hitler."  

 

I mean... so what? Yes cancer cells have longer telomeres but why is that important?

Edited by Nate-2004, 09 August 2016 - 03:30 PM.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Whenever I read about telomeres it is always repeated that yes telomeres shorten with age and limit cell divisions but the problem with longer telomeres is that cancer also has longer telomeres. Well... so what? Why is that relevant? If you lengthen the telomeres of healthy cells is that not a good thing? Does it risk converting them somehow into cancer cells?

 

It's like: "You know who else liked peanut butter? Hitler."  

 

I mean... so what? Yes cancer cells have longer telomeres but why is that important?

 

The thinking probably is that cancer cells will have their telomere lengths increased by telomere-increasing-agents, too, and thus will be able to replicate more. And if a healthy cell with long telomeres does mutate and becomes carciogenic, it will be able to spread itself quicker. 

[Nate-2004]

But isn't this a problem *only* if the person has cancer already before undergoing some sort of telomere lengthening therapy?

[PeaceAndProsperity]

But isn't this a problem *only* if the person has cancer already before undergoing some sort of telomere lengthening therapy?

If I've understood it right, we all have cancer cells in our body, every minute of every day, but the immune system deals with them. The problem is when the cancer cells become unable to be contained by the immune system, and overgrow.

[Nate-2004]

 

But isn't this a problem *only* if the person has cancer already before undergoing some sort of telomere lengthening therapy?

If I've understood it right, we all have cancer cells in our body, every minute of every day, but the immune system deals with them. The problem is when the cancer cells become unable to be contained by the immune system, and overgrow.

 

 

I don't think this is true.

[corb]

Telomeres really don't play as big role in aging as you think it does.

I posted this paper some months ago:

 

http://www.impactjou...83&path[]=21162

 

 

A confounding aspect of biological ageing is the nature and role of senescent cells. It is unclear whether the three major types of cellular senescence, namely replicative senescence, oncogene-induced senescence and DNA damage-induced senescence are descriptions of the same phenomenon instigated by different sources, or if each of these is distinct, and how they are associated with ageing. Recently, we devised an epigenetic clock with unprecedented accuracy and precision based on very specific DNA methylation changes that occur in function of age. Using primary cells, telomerase-expressing cells and oncogene-expressing cells of the same genetic background, we show that induction of replicative senescence (RS) and oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) are accompanied by ageing of the cell. However, senescence induced by DNA damage is not, even though RS and OIS activate the cellular DNA damage response pathway, highlighting the independence of senescence from cellular ageing. Consistent with this, we observed that telomerase-immortalised cells aged in culture without having been treated with any senescence inducers or DNA-damaging agents, re-affirming the independence of the process of ageing from telomeres and senescence. Collectively, our results reveal that cellular ageing is distinct from cellular senescence and independent of DNA damage response and telomere length.

 

[Nate-2004]

 

Telomeres really don't play as big role in aging as you think it does.

I posted this paper some months ago:

 

http://www.impactjou...83&path[]=21162

 

 

A confounding aspect of biological ageing is the nature and role of senescent cells. It is unclear whether the three major types of cellular senescence, namely replicative senescence, oncogene-induced senescence and DNA damage-induced senescence are descriptions of the same phenomenon instigated by different sources, or if each of these is distinct, and how they are associated with ageing. Recently, we devised an epigenetic clock with unprecedented accuracy and precision based on very specific DNA methylation changes that occur in function of age. Using primary cells, telomerase-expressing cells and oncogene-expressing cells of the same genetic background, we show that induction of replicative senescence (RS) and oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) are accompanied by ageing of the cell. However, senescence induced by DNA damage is not, even though RS and OIS activate the cellular DNA damage response pathway, highlighting the independence of senescence from cellular ageing. Consistent with this, we observed that telomerase-immortalised cells aged in culture without having been treated with any senescence inducers or DNA-damaging agents, re-affirming the independence of the process of ageing from telomeres and senescence. Collectively, our results reveal that cellular ageing is distinct from cellular senescence and independent of DNA damage response and telomere length.

 

 

So neither telomeres nor senescent cells play a role in aging? Am I understanding that right? 

[corb]

 

 

Telomeres really don't play as big role in aging as you think it does.

I posted this paper some months ago:

 

http://www.impactjou...83&path[]=21162

 

 

A confounding aspect of biological ageing is the nature and role of senescent cells. It is unclear whether the three major types of cellular senescence, namely replicative senescence, oncogene-induced senescence and DNA damage-induced senescence are descriptions of the same phenomenon instigated by different sources, or if each of these is distinct, and how they are associated with ageing. Recently, we devised an epigenetic clock with unprecedented accuracy and precision based on very specific DNA methylation changes that occur in function of age. Using primary cells, telomerase-expressing cells and oncogene-expressing cells of the same genetic background, we show that induction of replicative senescence (RS) and oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) are accompanied by ageing of the cell. However, senescence induced by DNA damage is not, even though RS and OIS activate the cellular DNA damage response pathway, highlighting the independence of senescence from cellular ageing. Consistent with this, we observed that telomerase-immortalised cells aged in culture without having been treated with any senescence inducers or DNA-damaging agents, re-affirming the independence of the process of ageing from telomeres and senescence. Collectively, our results reveal that cellular ageing is distinct from cellular senescence and independent of DNA damage response and telomere length.

 

 

So neither telomeres nor senescent cells play a role in aging? Am I understanding that right? 

 

 

In the conclusion:
 

 

Collectively, these two sets of observation make an effective case for the uncoupling of senescence from cellular ageing. This however, appears at first sight to be inconsistent with the fact that senescent cells contribute to the physical manifestation of organism ageing, as demonstrated elegantly by Baker et al., where removal of senescent cells slowed down ageing. In the light of our observations however, it is proposed that cellular senescence is a state that cells are forced into as a result of external pressures such as DNA damage, ectopic oncogene expression and exhaustive proliferation of cells to replenish those eliminated by external/environmental factors. These senescent cells, in sufficient numbers, will undoubtedly cause the deterioration of tissues, which is interpreted as organism ageing.

[Nate-2004]

In the light of our observations however, it is proposed that cellular senescence is a state that cells are forced into as a result of external pressures such as DNA damage, ectopic oncogene expression and exhaustive proliferation of cells to replenish those eliminated by external/environmental factors. These senescent cells, in sufficient numbers, will undoubtedly cause the deterioration of tissues, which is interpreted as organism ageing.

 

So... sort of. In a feedback loop kind of way?

[corb]

 

In the light of our observations however, it is proposed that cellular senescence is a state that cells are forced into as a result of external pressures such as DNA damage, ectopic oncogene expression and exhaustive proliferation of cells to replenish those eliminated by external/environmental factors. These senescent cells, in sufficient numbers, will undoubtedly cause the deterioration of tissues, which is interpreted as organism ageing.

 

So... sort of. In a feedback loop kind of way?

 

You could say that.
 

Also another thing I've mentioned before but I suppose never really underlined strongly enough - measuring lymphocyte telomere length is kinda meaningless if you want to prove a therapy can lengthen telomeres because lymphocytes are telomerase active and the results can be easily falsified by other means. It's a bit of a dubious measuring point even in longitudinal studies - granted most of those concentrate on health so not necessarily useless in that case because lymphocytes turnover is at a peak during disease.

 

 

 

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Not sure if this is known but I found this interesting article

http://fijisun.com.f...ng-set-up-here/

[marcobjj]

So, the biggest issue with bioviva was funding the procedure with reportedly cost millions of dollars. Yet, less than a year later we have this DIY Crispr kit available for 12 hundred dollars. Am I reading this right? If so, we can finally move past n=1 in this TERT therapy experiment.

 

 

http://www.origene.c...6/TERT.knockout

[PeaceAndProsperity]

So, the biggest issue with bioviva was funding the procedure with reportedly cost millions of dollars. Yet, less than a year later we have this DIY Crispr kit available for 12 hundred dollars. Am I reading this right? If so, we can finally move past n=1 in this TERT therapy experiment.

 

 

http://www.origene.c...6/TERT.knockout

I do find it suspicious but firstly they're not using CRISPR but rather a virus. You can buy a gene therapy to lower the one cholesterol transporter and that costs a million dollars. Gene therapy even when used by hospitals and in clinical trials is expensive as far as I know.

How difficult is it to use CRISPR, do you need to have a degree in genetics/biology or be trained? If people can do their own genetic treatments that would be better I think, but I have a hunch that it's not so easy to do. Imagine a bunch of 13 year olds following Internet tutorials for using this technology on themselves.

[Nate-2004]

What is TERT and what is knocking it out purported to do?

[marcobjj]

So, the biggest issue with bioviva was funding the procedure with reportedly cost millions of dollars. Yet, less than a year later we have this DIY Crispr kit available for 12 hundred dollars. Am I reading this right? If so, we can finally move past n=1 in this TERT therapy experiment.


http://www.origene.c...6/TERT.knockout

I do find it suspicious but firstly they're not using CRISPR but rather a virus. You can buy a gene therapy to lower the one cholesterol transporter and that costs a million dollars. Gene therapy even when used by hospitals and in clinical trials is expensive as far as I know.
How difficult is it to use CRISPR, do you need to have a degree in genetics/biology or be trained? If people can do their own genetic treatments that would be better I think, but I have a hunch that it's not so easy to do. Imagine a bunch of 13 year olds following Internet tutorials for using this technology on themselves.

Those things arent mutually exclusive my friend. Using a viral vector does not make this non-Crispr. What characterizers Crispr isnt the delivery method but rather the replacement or insertion of code within the DNA strands performed by the Cas9 enzime.

And yes what makes Crispr truly revolutionary and potentially dangerous is the fact that it can be done at home by amateurs. Check this out:

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=odE8dNcklks

Edited by marcobjj, 18 September 2016 - 11:41 PM.