Live data from Hacker News

FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

statnews.com

221–228 of 228 posts

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#221
post #21

> Vertex set the price of Casgevy at $2.2 million > Patients must spend weeks, even months, in the hospital before and after the therapy is administered. Yoiks. So how many actual people are going to be able to get this treatment?

That's how technological progress works. The first version is expensive and not very good, so it isn't used much. But some use proves that it works, lets the kinks get worked out, and gives the makers funding and incentive to optimize the cost and quality. Give them time for a few iterations and it'll be cheap and plentiful. Just like the iPhone - the first one was super expensive, harder to get, and pretty limited. Now there's lots of cheap options and they're everywhere.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#222

Ohalo (the company Dave Friedberg is now CEO of) recently got approval for a potato edited by CRISPR: > Ohalo had two RSRs under consideration this year for its potato, one which focuses on higher concentrations of beta carotene – enhancing the overall health and nutrition value of the potato – and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, which, according to Ohalo, will reduce the…

>and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, That's pretty amazing. Imagine if we can change apples to produce Aspartame instead of sugars!

Regardless of whether aspartame is better or worse than sugars (I neither know nor care) that sounds awful. I find the taste of aspartame revolting.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#223
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are diabetic, aspartame is much worse for you than sugar. It causes metabolic issues, such as reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar), migraines in some people, interacts with drugs, is bad for your digestive tract, and probably has other side effects. Even if you are diabetic, you can already eat apples. They have a low glycemic index.

Decades of research have found rare, but still very mildly negative health results from aspartame, and an overwhelming flood of direct evidence for strong negative health effects from sugar. Back up what you are saying with some studies. Because what you are claiming is going against a LOT of modern medical knowledge.

Are you kidding? Aspartame is horrible for you. Dozens of studies link it to cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, seizures, stroke and dementia, as well as negative effects such as intestinal dysbiosis, mood disorders, headaches and migraines. It's also linked to weight gain and obesity.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#224
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are diabetic, aspartame is much worse for you than sugar. It causes metabolic issues, such as reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar), migraines in some people, interacts with drugs, is bad for your digestive tract, and probably has other side effects. Even if you are diabetic, you can already eat apples. They have a low glycemic index.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you back any of this up, or provide a reason I should believe what you’re saying? Because it directly contradicts decades of research on what is perhaps the most scrutinised and studied dietary supplement in the world. Aspartame is safe, and very well tolerated. You’re spreading misinformation.

You are the one spreading misinformation. Aspartame is horrible for you.

Here, have a read. I have more if you would like them.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220324143800.h...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/pdf/ehp0...

http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.pdf

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...

https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4163

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1419.long

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436139

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2213120119

https://news.fsu.edu/news/university-news/2022/12/08/fsu-res...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41213-2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCoBuTr0Or0

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/17/artificial-sweeteners-we...

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/09/14/why-one-cardiologis...

https://www.philly.com/philly/health/this-cardiologist-wants...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27129676

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/04/20/STROK...

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2017/04/20/daily-consumption-of...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/2...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24787915

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24787917

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1579221

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/pdf/env...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28198207

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28049023

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661805...

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27997218

http://www.massgeneral.org/News/pressrelease.aspx?id=2016

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#225
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, That's pretty amazing. Imagine if we can change apples to produce Aspartame instead of sugars!

Unless you are diabetic, aspartame is much worse for you than sugar. It causes metabolic issues, such as reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar), migraines in some people, interacts with drugs, is bad for your digestive tract, and probably has other side effects. Even if you are diabetic, you can already eat apples. They have a low glycemic index.

[deleted]

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you back any of this up, or provide a reason I should believe what you’re saying? Because it directly contradicts decades of research on what is perhaps the most scrutinised and studied dietary supplement in the world. Aspartame is safe, and very well tolerated. You’re spreading misinformation.

You are the one spreading misinformation. Aspartame is horrible for you. Here, have a read. I have more if you would like them. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220324143800.h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/pdf/ehp0... http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.…

For anyone else reading this, feel free to ignore this person's post. If there's a good case to be made that aspartame is harmful, this isn't it. Few of these studies are germane to typical human exposure, and typical exposure levels aren't strongly correlated with large increases in risk.

For the author, try reading some of these papers. Also don't bother linking to press releases or newspaper articles, you're just wasting other people's time. You probably want to skip the animal studies too. Go for no more than three links, preferably meta-studies -- at least if your intention is to be taken for something other than a crank.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#227
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Soy, brown rice, pea, corn, and potato all hit their EAA/total protein cut-off. 2. I don't see how amino acid % of total protein is a useful way to gauge a food's protein especially in this context. Wouldn't you want to look at protein per calorie or EAA per calorie? For example the paper's chart might make you think that you should eat potatoes and corn if you want to maximize plant-based protein, but that's not…

Don't compare whole potato, it should be to potato protein extract.

If you were just talking about min-maxing protein extracts for a protein powder or something, I wouldn't have commented.

But your comment on the EAA/totalProtein ratio (when potatoes are very low in protein) possibly being responsible for why potatoes taste good made me chime in for clarification.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Soy, brown rice, pea, corn, and potato all hit their EAA/total protein cut-off. 2. I don't see how amino acid % of total protein is a useful way to gauge a food's protein especially in this context. Wouldn't you want to look at protein per calorie or EAA per calorie? For example the paper's chart might make you think that you should eat potatoes and corn if you want to maximize plant-based protein, but that's not…

> Wouldn't you want to look at protein per calorie or EAA per calorie? PDCAAS is a reasonable standard to use, pro-rated against total calories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Correc...

One problem with PDCAAS is that it's based on the limiting EAA in a food, but everyone interprets it as a general bioavailability ratio when it's not.

A food with 1000x the EAAs per calorie of every other food, but 0 of one EAA would score below the other foods even though you could get the day's worth of EAA on 1/1000 the calories + one serving of an additional food that can give you the missing EAA (i.e. eat more than one food every day).

Post reply on HN