arrow74

I didn't say it was magic. Part of the issue is we don't know what modifications he made in making his artificial version. I won't pretend like there aren't a lot of unknowns there. It could alter the effectiveness in numerous ways.

Having a heterozygous deletion is still effecting the right gene. Without knowing both of her parents genetics it's hard to say if it was natural. What he did could produce either a heterozygous or homozygous result on the gene, but only the homozygous presentation is effective at prevention.

So 1 was a full success and the other showed activation on the appropriate gene, but not enough to confer resistance. Although it is possible it does since he used an artificial gene. We know the natural one is not effective in a heterozygous presentation. I still think that was his greatest mistake. He should have just used the naturally effective gene.

You do make a good point with the full backing rigor of the scientific method this procedure would always be successful.

So far I'm liking lemmy more because there is a lot less per post. I find I'm enjoying each thread more fully. It's like I'm not endless scrolling because I can't. I've actually read more articles in the day since I've joined than in my last 3 months on reddit.

Per the wikipedia page it states that it is not clear if it effective because they're not going to intentionally infect the children to test it. But we see the results specifically on the targeted gene. That's a success and demonstrates the technology works.

I'd argue the folly was inserting an artificial gene as opposed to the natural gene that we already know works. Either way the technology showed expression on the correct gene, that is a success.

We'd be having a better discourse on this if his results weren't banned from every journal and not studied.

By all accounts what he did worked. The potential to end HIV is huge. The amount of human suffering that could be reduced by rolling out what he did is very real.

The technology is here. It's better to strictly manage it for the public good than to lock it away.

Frankly I would need to gather several experts and have access to all relevant data to even begin.

However, bringing in the world's 9th largest economy would have it's benefits. If joined it would be the 4th largest economy in the EU.

I believe that would provide great benefit.

The only thing you've mentioned that I have a suggestion on how to handle would be smuggling. Simply when leaving Canada to fly into the EU they go through standard security. Your already not allowed to fly with prohibited substances. If you're really worried when first arriving in Europe they can go through customs and then be allowed free travel. Although the existing land borders in Europe are much harder to control. Canada being an ocean away can be controlled much easier. Even if it's land borders are larger.

I'm sure these things could be addressed while still maintaining the economic benefits of bringing Canada into the EU.

I doubt the European Georgia is the one producing pecans. I can only speak for the state of Georgia, but pecans are a huge industry there. So I'd be willing to bet product of georgia = USA

When you're not growing seedling you could grow microgreens.

Honestly that space is big enough to grown some veggies in containers

Faster than expected seems to be the motto for this year.

Dismissing a state's right to sovereignty is the most anti-democratic thing I can think of.

Considering Ukraine is the only modern/western democracy to have been invaded for territorial conquest in about 80 years demonstrates the level of bullshit that you're spouting.