• DougPiranha42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Neither of those things is what the patient received. Do you mean they should test the vector without the payload on the patient? If the adverse reaction is to the vector, the patient would then experience the negative effects without a chance of getting any benefits. So why not give the real thing then? If you mean a control vector should be tested on healthy volunteers, idk, maybe, but it’s hard to come up with a relevant control that certainly doesn’t do anything to dna.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If the adverse reaction is to the vector, the patient would then experience the negative effects without a chance of getting any benefits.

      Yeah but she wouldn’t be fucking dead.

      • DougPiranha42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Wtf. If she died from the dna editing, doing the test you mention wouldn’t have prevented it. If she died from the formulation, she would have died from the test you talk about. I don’t see a scenario where a test with a control virus makes a difference.

          • DougPiranha42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            She died in kidney failure and thrombotic microangiopathy, not an allergic reaction. They did test for antibodies against the virus. The injection was directly into the cerebrospinal fluid, not exactly the same exposure you get with a skin allergy test.