285
First-In-Human Trial Of CRISPR Gene-Editing Therapy Safely Lowered Cholesterol, Triglycerides
(finance.yahoo.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
285 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
78705 readers
3875 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bring it on!!!
Autoimmune disease? GONE!
Acne? GONE!
Don't like your eye color? CHANGE IT!
For rich by rich, only rich get.
Now, sing with me: “Only in America…”
Thats not really true.
The US is an exception but generally, the cost of therapies becomes commercially viable with the passage of time.
For example, our 2 year old daughter just had her DNA profiled because she has a few manageable, yet ongoing developmental deficiencies. Her DNA markers will guide her treatment.
When I was a child this type of treatment was sci-fi, and when it was invented you could have said "by rich for rich" or whatever.
Despite my other comments, I suspect you are right.
Cost and price are two different things. Insulin is cheap to make but people die from not being able to afford the sticker price.
.... In the US, yes
Not outside the US
Shit's going to get pretty weird imo. Hopefully it isn't used for eugenics purposes (it probably will be, let's be honest). I don't think that people should be able to change so many things that they become unrecognizable, but I can understand changing a few things per person, voluntarily, obviously.
I believe in bodily autonomy. People should be able to do whatever they want to their own body.
Allowed, sure, just don't think it's a good idea to completely change who you are. I want humans to be recognizable as such. I'm more worried about what parents will be doing to their children, that's where the eugenics shit becomes a problem. Getting rid of "undesirable" traits and whatnot.
Some people are way too attached to their disabilities.
Would you prefer that autistics and those with down syndrome cease to exist?
Removing mental and physical developmental issues from future generations; yes I personally would prefer that ceases to exist.
Or are you in bad faith trying to equate that with taking people currently alive and executing them, because that is far from the same thing.
How do you feel about NIPT tests and ultrasounds?
-edit-
I'll give a real answer in spite of your strawman.
Of course not. I believe every single person's value is innate to their being, not derived from their ability, shape or productivity. Everyone deserves respect (until their actions say otherwise) and equality.
There is nothing about me that makes me better than someone who is neuro divergent or differently abled. However I'm also well aware of the severe physical and emotional challenges that things like severe autism or downs syndrome can cause for both the individual and their families, even when ignoring the additional challenges caused by discrimination from society at large.
Perhaps a really shitty question you should ask yourself is if you could go back in time and choose to be born with downs syndrome, would you?
If not then why? If not, isn't it slightly hypocritical that you believe others, without their consent, should be?
Individuals with autism and other differences deserve to exist in the future. My brother and I were born with autism, my brother was born with much higher support needs. Yes, there can be challenges, of course there are. But he's happy enough, and I'm not sure he would be happier as a neurotypical. My parents? Well, they might've preferred he not be.
Personally, I'd never choose to born without my autism or ADHD, because it's arguably a part of who I am. If I was born without either, my life would be unrecognizable.
Would I choose to be born with Down Syndrome? I don't know. I've never had it. I might've been a happier person. Might've had way worse of a life. I'd ask some people with it if they'd rather been born without it. Is it not immoral to remove a potential part of their being without their consent?
Let me be clear, I'm sure that plenty of both groups would prefer to have never had it. A majority, I don't know, not sure any surveys or studies have been done on the matter. Not sure there's any way to prove that the issues on either side outweigh the other.
On the discrimination, don't you think that plenty of people will be doing this because of their prejudices?
Also, the original question WAS just a question. It was a bit suggestive, my apologies. I was a bit tired.
There are a lot more problems in trying to create the infrastructure to enforce sanctioned uses of any readily accessible technology than there is in the use of said tool. The people who want to do the most harm inevitability wind up in the oversight position, while society tends to create enforcement mechanisms at a social, interpersonal level organically already.
WDYM "for eugenics purposes"?
Watch gattacca
Look up designer babies.
That's not really "eugenics" as I understand the term but whatever.
And enjoy the 5 cancers you just caused yourself by editing other genes that happen to contain the targeted sequence !
Don't want to stop being cruel and violent? Want to keep committing atrocity against vulnerable individuals while destroying human-supporting environments on Earth, for absolutely no practical benefit to yourself? Well good news! Investor-driven medical research is here to protect you (and only you) from the consequences of your monstrous choices!
What are you talking about?
I suspect they're making an unwarranted assumption that the experimental patient ended up with high cholesterol due to excessive consumption of animal products (rather than, say, a genetic defect that would cause them to overproduce it regardless of diet) and applying some typical vegan arguments regarding livestock farming. No need to listen to them.
Where do you think dietary cholesterol comes from?
Your body makes it's own cholesterol, and so the main driver of your cholesterol level is genetics. Quote from the AMA:
https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/chronic-diseases/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-high-cholesterol
Well, it can come from palm/coconut oil for example, it doesn't only come from animals, and vegans with familial hypercholesterolemia want you to shut the fuck up.