Peter Attia· MD
this child is going to be dead in a couple of years and it's a very ugly death there's really nobody in their right mind that wouldn't be in favor of a therapy there
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
this child is going to be dead in a couple of years and it's a very ugly death there's really nobody in their right mind that wouldn't be in favor of a therapy there
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
if there is a obvious and uh an important medical benefit U so especially for imor errors and metabolis ISM or other non-tic mutations if the technology is there I I think is you know it's something that that is definitely doable and and I think it's okay to to um to improve the lives of those patients
when it comes to a disease that's going to kill you with no other treatment it seems like a no-brainer right genetic uh editing and and genetic engineering um should absolutely be considered a part of the equation