this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
51 points (94.7% liked)
Science
7178 readers
63 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Yeah but she wouldn't be fucking dead.
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.
An allergy test uses small amounts to test for a reaction.
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.