CRISPR used to remove extra chromosomes in Down syndrome and restore cell function
CRISPR used to remove extra chromosomes in Down syndrome and restore cell function
The lab did specify that there's a looooong road between here and putting this in the clinic, but it's a good to see.
God that was such a bad intro tune. Adding the acoustic guitar didn't help. Loved the show until they went full "Timecop".
Never go full Timecop.
#FaithOfTheHeart
I genuinely wonder where the line is between curing defects and eugenics. It seems razor thin how it can swing easiy into dark territory.
I remember this was literally the question posed to us by an ethics professor 20 years ago. Now it's a reality.
A person with Down's can live a happy fulfilling life, but most parents would never choose to have a child with Down's if it could be born 'normal' instead. So we're essentially removing them from the gene pool and human race.
It's eugenics for sure. I'm not sure if it's unethical though. It's pretty complex.
we're essentially removing them from the gene pool
I don't think Downs works like that.
It's already being removed, since people choose abortion over downs and since people with Downs don't have children (normally).
It is not hereditary. It's an error or mutation that can occur for anyone. The chances are higher the older the parents are.
My understanding is that women with down syndrome only have a 30-50% chance of fertility, and men are generally infertile. Additionally there are laws in place to prevent those with mental disabilities from being taken advantage of sexually, which lessens the chance of children even more. It's a spontaneous mutation, so they wouldn't be removed from the gene pool.
The one thing you can guarantee of the human race though is we will do it before we really put the thought in to "if" we should do it.
I have ADHD and have 2 boys on the spectrum. Despite the challenges with my younger and higher needs son I don't know if given the opportunity to play God if I would. As you said it's an extremely complex question I don't know if anyone is truly equipped to answer and I'd argue we definitely aren't mature enough to start playing God.
Here be dragons.
Stopping fetuses from developing Down's Syndrome in my opinion isn't unethical because it will genuinely improved their quality of life. They will live longer lives, have fewer health problems, etc. The slippery slope however was pretty well covered in the film Gattica in which people not only start requesting designer children but the world becomes a dystopian utopia where the genetically perfected are unfairly favored as the ruling class while the genetically unmodified become relegated to the worker/slave class.
This isn't eugenics or close to it, it's fixing actual problems before someone is born, not choosing who has rights to breed. If they announced a therapy to guarantee a child will grow up immune to corporate propaganda or be able to use their brain in a rational, well-planned and thoughtful way, and have exceptional language skills, we should voluntarily hand the world over to them. Because what's happening right now is the opposite of that.
Right now capitalism is imposing eugenics on us. The system and the cost of life has created a very real system deciding who can have families. If tools emerged that could guarantee the kids we DO have aren't subject to the same weaknesses and limitations, we need to capitalize on every advantage we can.
I agree. Eugenics is about harming the rights of the would-be parents. It means telling them, "You have traits we consider undesirable, so we will forcibly prevent you from having any child whatsoever."
To me, that's different from parents choosing to avoid having a child with certain traits. Or not having children at all.
If parents decide to cure a disorder in their future child, or decide to abort a pregnancy, nobody is stopping those parents from trying again. The parents themselves have not been deemed undesirable and unworthy to pass on their genes.
There will be no line for anyone who can afford it. Morality will not be in question. It's basic human nature. To believe anything else is crazy
You're definitely right how this without proper regulation could get out of hand with unethical individuals trying to edit genes. I'd say from my non-geneticist perspective the line would be "would editing this gene improve the individual's quality of life or improve their life expectancy". Operationalizing"quality of life" is obviously crucial here and can't be defined socially but medically such as "no debilitating pain".
I do wonder how things like this will impact existing communities of individuals with disabilities. I'd expect it would probably increase discrimination as it will increase the perception of people with disabilities as being "curable" which isn't always possible or even desirable.
Yeah this is scary. Down syndrome is definitely in the gray area too where it can be viewed negatively but plenty of people have it and lead fulfilling lives. Wipe cystic fibrosis out of a fetus and all but the most staunch biological purists would agree it was a good thing. Make your fetus white, blonde, and blue eyed and it's obviously eugenics. I don't know how I feel about this.
Completely apart from the ethics, I think this technology is really cool though.
There are a lot of reports and interviews with ppl who have down syndrome that are not happy at all with their situation. Ie. Unable to have a driving licence, go to university, huge disadvantage on the dating market… the list goes on. I’m not saying they can’t have fulfilling moments but we also shouldn’t kid ourselves and look at down syndrome with rosy eyes. If it could be cured everyone would do it instantly.
Phenotype vs biological normative.
Deaf people will decry “fixing” a person hearing impaired in the womb. Yet, it’s a correction to biological normative.
Adjusting a gender to a different one in the womb would not be.
Adjusting physical traits for looks wouldn’t be.
Adjusting a physical trait like spinal deformity would be.
Adjusting for general height would not be.
If there is something diagnosable in the ICD-10 codes we have, and it’s preventable in a population, it would not be eugenetics. Remove gene editing as the tool, but just say “magic” a cure. Cures apply to diseases, not traits.
You don’t cure being black. You CAN cure sickle cell.
I think the line is pretty clear.
You simply use existing diagnostic criteria of deviation from biological normative function.
I'm fine with it at this point.
I think a fair line is removing debilitating genetic conditions, but not for cosmetic uses.
If the person grows old enough that they have dysphoria for some reason then cosmetic surgeries are pretty routine these days.
they should poll people with down syndrome. not carers, not family, no people who work with them.
if they consider they idea obscene, them or should be considered obscene, of they consider it a must, then it's ok.
I did not realize CRISPR was so powerful as to remove chromosomes entirely. Can CRISPR be used to change someone's genetic sex? Republicans would freak out.
RED ALERT! WOKE LIBERAL COMMUNISTS ARE USING CRISPR BEAMS FROM LOW IRBITING SATTELITES TO FORCIBLY CHANGE OUR GENDERS! BUY MY ANTI-WOKE SUPPLIMENTS TO PROTECT YOUR MANLINESS.
By my limited understanding that might be feasible right now in utero, which obviously is not exactly what we want.
I think that maybe in the future we could change someone's sex when they're older. Honestly I think it's maybe just the matter of research on this not being focused on genetic changes after the womb.
The article was not clear about what stage in someone's life the CRISPR treatment can be applied. I would have assumed early in gestation. But this raises questions such as how down syndrome would be detected at that stage. If in vitro is the method, then why not simply filter out down syndrome at that stage?
I'm fully expecting in our lifetimes for CRISPR to be able to flip the genome or whatever in the body that produces sex hormones such that testes and ovaries could swap functions and produce the opposite sex hormone.
Between this and using your own DNA to apply to scaffolding to grow an organ, the future is bright. I also expect to see sex organs of the opposite sex grown in a lab from your own DNA and then transplanted into you, and the body wouldn't reject them.
The latter technology exists, but nobody seems to be interested in expanding it past this pilot.
CRISPR on our gonads to produce estrogen instead of testosterone?
🤔 It's pretty tempting, and as long as it's not hereditary, I'm all up for it. 🏳️⚧️
Or testosterone instead of estrogen. Though I'm doubtful that exchanging X and Y chromosomes will change the physiological function of your existing organs that much.
I honestly just meant to do this for no other reasons than to flip the bird to conservatives who arbitrarily define sex chromosomally.
While this is fabulous news I do worry that there could be similar done for other genetic conditions that are far more contentious as to whether they're a disability not.
Neurodivergence is the one that springs to mind right away. The majority of people on the autism spectrum are at level 1. While it has negatives there are positives into thinking and seeing the world differently.
How many of those would have been 'curered' in the womb by scared parents who've just been told that their child will be born autistic? Scared parents who's fear will mean when hearing that they think of someone at the far end of level 3.
Then what about for ADHD and dyslexia.
What about other physical conditions like dwarfism etc.
So...Remember the X-Men series of movies? I forget which of the films it was, I stopped giving a shit about superhero movies a decade before it was cool, but one of them involved a "mutant cure." Most of Professor X's mutants saw it as an existential threat, but Rogue--whose 'powers' utterly sucked--saw it as something she wanted to do.
Ultimately I think the key here is individual consent. Yes and No need to be equally valid answers otherwise it gets pretty fucked up.
Some folks make a pretty good living for themselves looking at the world slightly differently than everyone else, other folks would like to do something with their life other than drool. Surely we the civilization that can split the atom and splice the genome can help both of these people live their best lives? Otherwise what the fuck are we even doing here?
I don't know if you personally have any disabilities, but generally, when I see this take, the person doesn't.
I'd take a crispr treatment without hesitation. And everyone I know would do the same. My partner and I are doing IVF not for fertility reasons but to ensure certain genes don't get passed down to our kids.
That whole disability-is-a-positive view is a very privileged thing to say.
Not the person you replied to, but this is a nuanced conversation, much beyond the simplicity of disabled or not.
Deafness is the one that comes to mind, there are others that do as well, but I grew up in a Deaf household so I know a bit more about it.
For a group of Deaf people, they quite like being Deaf, they have their own language and schools etc. Those schools arent particularly decent, but for the group that like being Deaf they dont care. They'd rather fix the schools then fix their kids.
The notion that disability is a social issue is true, but fixing society to cater towards most disabled groups is a far greater task in most cases. Obviously Deafness and others are the expection where it is felt that it is easier/better to fix society.
Deafness has been "curable" for a while, yet i was raised to see that cure as a form of genocide, trying to erradicate a linguistic minority, rather than fix them. As without deaf children, it was very unlikely anyone would pick up their language.
I frankly think that there is no downside to try to be positive about disablilty, i say this from the uk, where the rhetoric has been destructive beyond belief. That said it is all very case dependent.
Yeah, on the one hand it isn't fair to let someone be born with a condition that negatively effects their life when there's a treatment to prevent it happening. On the other hand, as you say it's good to have divergent people in society - there really is strength in diversity.
I'm still waiting to be tested but I swear if we were still hunters and gatherers in a small tribe then my suspected ADHD would be irrelevant.
This is the beginning of countless sci-fi stories. According to the TV and movies I've seen, this will lead to customizing fetuses, mostly for intelligence, and then the question becomes does society accept those people as their leaders (Brave New World) or criminalize their gene-enhanced intellect (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)?
As I recall, the reason the Federation outlawed genetic manipulation is due to what happened with the Eugenics Wars, the details of which are murky due to temporal interference, but one of the root causes was clear. While the end results of genetic engineering (Khan Noonien-Singh and his Augments) were undoubtedly superior to normal humans in every way, they also incredibly aggressive and arrogant, a flaw their creators could not correct, as the science was still in its infancy. One of the scientists remarked that "Superior ability breeds superior ambition".
checks correlation of education to voting outcomes
Checks news
It will be seen as an anti-control danger and banned entirely by the nearly single-circle Venn diagram of government officials, oligarchs, and religious figures.
They will be quiet about the true nature of their decision. Instead, it will be called a danger to society, ungodly, and unnatural. Rumors will be started that it creates autistic psychopaths, and that anyone in any country that touches the technology will need to be permanently ostracized.
I believe this will happen, only slowly enough that it will feel normal. First genetic diseases for a generation. As our understanding and editing improve, humans will start to edit for benefits, maybe something small like eyesight, so kids don't need glasses. Eventually, it will just be a part of our medical culture. If everyone is edited, it won't be taboo to keep going, after all, who wouldn't want their kids to be better off than they are? 1000 years from now, our species won't be recognizable to us today. Slightly related, have you seen what they're doing with lab grown human brain cell organoids connected to microchips? 1000 years (or significantly less!), unrecognizable.
Black Mirror episode
Holy crap. The obvious use for this would be in vitro. However, I cannot wait to see how this affects those already born. Could it be used on someone who is a 7 year old to rid them of this? What if they're 50? So cool. Can't wait to see where this goes.
And in the US, religious assholes want to ban IVF for exactly this reason, because it's "playing God".
"if your god wasn't such a loser fuckup, we wouldn't need to fix this mess"
Until someone who knows more tells me otherwise, no. It would have to be applied to a human at the stage of a single cell
You are right (at the 8 cell stage you can still separate them and treat them one at a time, giving you multiple shots at IVF)
Two of the main issues regarding gene editing when not talking single cells are the transfer into the nucleus, and then accessing the DNA you want.
In bacteria, the DNA kinda just swims around in the cell, which makes editing easy if you can get the CRISPR/Cas9 complex in the cell. But animal cells have another membrane surrounding the DNA, making the transfer less than straightforward.
Regarding access: our DNA isn't lying around like mom's spaghetti, but rather pretty tightly packed around histones - a protein octamer.
This means that your target might not be reachable (the cell itself has 3 options iirc: slide the DNA over the surface of the histone, replace a part of the histone with an alternative, or remove the histone altogether) Since the way the DNA is wound around the histones affects gene activity (something tightly packed is not active, something in a loose area is getting transcribed into mRNA and therefore possibly active), you cannot just unwind all of it.
The only time this is not the case is during cell division, where the nucleus is getting dismantled so the DNA can be duplicated and both new cells can get their own copy. But many cells do not divide in an adult (except for a reservoir of stem cells which are there to replace lost cells)
So, it's all very complicated.
The article mentions the technique worked on most (differentiated) skin cells they tested on, in addition to working on (undifferentiated) stem cells.
But, there's a lot of steps between this article and any sort of treatment, if I understand correctly.
It might be easier to just edit the gametes before they form a zygote at all. That would also make consent for treatment much clearer.
Could it be used on someone who is a 7 year old to rid them of this?
No. Gene editing works in this case since they're just working with a few cells. But a whole human is way more cells. Not only that, but the cells have already developed into structures that are much harder to access, and difficult to change. Any gene therapy may only affect a few cells.
On top of that, there's also a bunch of ethical issues around altering a human when they've already formed, and we don't really know if it would be possible to do so, or if it would make things worse.
Hard to say at this point. This early testing was on cells in a petri dish. It will take a lot of study to convert this to a treatment on living humans and determine the best time to intervene.
i can't tell if you're serious.
"Gattaca" and "Brave new world" are becoming reality.
CRISPR is the uranium of biology. Could use it to make cheap, reliable, clean energy, or could use it to make nukes.
Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn't cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and 'acceptably' clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).
Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃
Too bad history has showed us that when a new technology appears, bad uses of it tends to become the norm.
Dark Angel doesn't seem too far fetched now, but seemed impossible in my lifetime when it aired.
That's a dilemma. The kids and parents not having the challenges is great, but also people with Downs are often some of the best humans to exist.
I work with special needs adults. Your experiences, while valid, with many of those that arent so disabled that they actually can engage with society, do not represent those with more extreme versions of this disability.
Often they will never get to experience the fullness of life they could without. Basically, people with Downs who dont have caretakers with means are fucked pretty hard.
Of the 6 I interact with daily, I think they all would rather not have the disability, and 2 have said they would trade places with the guy in the wheel chair that has seizures sometimes, but is otherwise living a normal life.
I would agree with you on that as well. I do some volunteering with the special Olympics, have family members, etc. it's like you said and in these cases they are able to interact with the general public, maybe have basic jobs, live in group homes, and so forth.
I also agree they are fucked without support. I am not advocating for more people to have the disease so much as I wish more people had the vibes of the population I'm referencing.
But how would them not having the disease make them worse people?
I kind of understand because I worry about it purely in my own case. I have severe ADHD and, overall, I really wish I could just function without it being a struggle every single day. But in my case and many others with my type of ADHD, its comorbidity with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria makes me extremely empathetic. A lot of my friends over the years have told me that, when they need someone to truly understand them and see them and give perspective that resonates, they come to me first.
If someday, a doctor would be able to snip off some chromosomes and suddenly I'm cured, it would be positively life-changing. But I would hesitate. The emotional resonance that comes easily to me is something I hold dear to my heart. Would I Iose that part of myself? Would I care? I don't know. I love that part of me, and while I wouldn't necessarily be a worse person, losing that part of me means a lot of people that love me lose something they love about me too.
Sounds kinda biblical like eating from the tree of knowledge.
they still can be.
I've known plenty of people with down syndrome that were abused and were some of the most vile people I've ever known.
perhaps they are the best because they are treated differently and we should treat everyone that way.
I agree. We should treat others differently. Case in point: several people trying to pick a flight with me about this.
Of course I'm not saying "we shouldn't try to cure this disease." Maybe I'm saying, "these people are 'Innocents ' who don't have to have the same interactions with society as we do, and in some ways that's better because society is fucked."
Idk man, having down syndrome also gives you a much greater chance of things like heart defects. Life expectancy has improved recently to 50-60yrs old for them according to a quick search. I don't think there's a dilemma here at all. I wouldn't want a disease that decreases my lifespan.
No one’s saying they’re not. But Down syndrome also predisposes kids to cataracts, hearing loss, heart disease, leukemia, thyroid problems, severe constipation, and gum disease. It’s a disorder that causes a litany of health problems, and it’s not fair to saddle a person with potentially life-threatening conditions on the grounds that many with the disorder are nice people.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Please read the other comments.
Where is the line with eugenics being bad and it being good?
It's a really deep pool, and I'm going to juuuust touch the edge here and say that consent should absolutely count, if they're in a condition to give informed consent. In general, I expect that people with disabilities would prefer to not have the disability, and I would love to give them that choice. What shouldn't happen, though, is people being changed or treated without their consent.
This isn’t eugenics. This is taking advantage of crispr to make genetic modifications.
I agree that it's not eugenics, at least not as we normally think of it, but it's definitely edging into GATTACA territory.
I mean, sure, if you ignore all of history. What if I was using CRISPR to prevent a child from being born black or brown?
Hell, what if I used it to keep a kid from being born deaf? The deaf community is one that's very outspoken about exactly that kind of treatment as a form of eugenics, as it is a potential existential threat to their culture.
bodily autonomy i think
But what does bodily autonomy mean when this will almost certainly be primarily used in utero? Should I be able to use CRISPR to keep my baby from being born with Downs?
Should I be able to use it to make my baby less prone to other diseases?
Make them taller?
Change their race?
Add interesting modifications that I think would be cool, like an extra set of arms or gills or something?
What does bodily autonomy mean for a fetus?
Humanity, one step closer to get rid of all of the genetic defects that we have accumulated because of our own reproductive stupidity.
I wish for a future in which genetic diseases do not exist. 👐
Seems like very basic research - I wonder how far in the future it might turn into a human treatment, and what improvements people would see?
My uninformed guess is that even if you edit chromosomes it won't change someone. Like if you edit someone's DNA to give them DNA that makes blue eyes, their eyes won't turn blue. I think they are just like turn signals that direct growth of a being during development.
This seems good initially.
I just really really hope they won't try to "cure autism" with this next.
Autism is an important and fundamental part of me. The fact that it's often classified as a disease is understandable, but nevertheless sickens me.
They don't even know what autism is. Genetics play a role, but most likely they simply affect the chances of developing autism. And really autism is a spectrum, so think like a clock. If the minute hand is between 10 and 2, it is autism, the rest isn't. So it is less a thing you "have" and more about being in a range from thing that ends up causing a snowball effect. My kid is autistic. It is like there is a missing feedback channel that would cause a typical kid to modify there behavior. All that really translates to is a lower sensitivity to a specific feedback. Typical people will have a range, he is just very low on that range.
Don't worry. Autism is more complicated.
I don't want them to "cure autism" by erasing it, either. I'd rather they try to "cure autism" by improving on what it can help a human be capable of doing. That way, if we have a real-life "Butlerian Jihad" like from the lore of Dune, we have Mentats (human computers) to replace "thinking machines"(AI and computers).
You are the genetics they want to remove.
Rude!
How many generations of inbreeding would be necessary before it returns again?
Down syndrome is a result of errors in DNA replication during the formation of gametes or early development. While there are genetic risk factors they're not particularly linked to inbreeding.
By far the largest risk factor is the age of the parents.
I have mixed feelings about this. At first it seems great, but the line between “genetic defect” and eugenics can get very blurry.
There are many people with what some would consider a “defect” to be fixed that live incredibly fulfilling lives and bring an irreplaceable uniqueness to the world.
EDIT: I guess this wasn’t clear from my original comment, but I’m not arguing against this particular use case. I understand very well the challenges that down’s presents to both the person and their caretakers. I’m saying that I’m weary about the precedent this can set while there is no legal boundary between curing crippling diseases and simply changing undesirable (in the parents’ subjective view) traits.
This is such a bad take. Eugenics and gene therapy are completely different things. It's like the difference between developing a cure for HIV vs adopting a policy that people with HIV be killed. Eugenics is an evil pseudoscience from the 19th century, do not conflate it with actual genetics research that can improve the human condition.
There are many people with what some would consider a “defect” to be fixed that live incredibly fulfilling lives and bring an irreplaceable uniqueness to the world.
Sure but the same thing can be said of any illness. There are wonderful anxiety-riddled or depressed people in the world. Should we prevent them from getting anti-depressants because it would make them less unique?
I’m well aware of the difference.
First of all, HIV doesn’t make sense as an example because that’s a virus, not genetic.
I’m also not debating the scientific legitimacy of CRISPR. It’s obviously much more valid as a science than the eugenics of the past.
Sure but the same thing can be said of any illness.
No, it can’t. I’m not even talking about illnesses. There are plenty of examples of genetic diversity that and not intrinsically bad, but many would prefer to change because of stigma. What about sex? Height? ADHD? Skin/hair color? All of these could arguably make someone’s life more challenging. But we should make our society more accepting of this diversity, not altering our genes to remove it. That is eugenics. Period.
There are wonderful anxiety-riddled or depressed people in the world. Should we prevent them from getting anti-depressants because it would make them less unique?
This argument makes no sense. You’re comparing informed consent medication with editing an embryo’s DNA? Also, anxiety and depression, as an example, do have genetic predispositions, but are mostly triggered by environmental factors. Which again, brings us back to fixing our society, not our genes.
people with downs syndrome have a significantly shorter lifespan compared to the rest of society. these people would still be who they are even after treatment but would have the potential to live longer healthier lives.
get your philosophical moralistic bullshit out of here. if you were so concerned about this before why not complain about how you aren't the same physical being after 10 years due to all your cells being in a constant state of death and rebirth.
Yeah, I’m not arguing against curing Down’s syndrome. I updated my post to be clearer.
However your “Ship of Theseus” argument makes no sense and is completely irrelevant.
something that i'm also very worried about is humans making permanent genetic changes to people, that are hereditary, but have some sort of unexpected, poorly understood, downside. like, a modification might cure deafness, but cause a different, seemingly unrelated, defect in the process.
Wasn't CRISPR used to clone Dolly the sheep that had a very short lifespan? Aren't there better editing techniques than it? Didn't we learn that there seems to be a huge checksum in the DNA and if something changes somewhere, the checksum doesn't add up and things go... well, dead.
No, CRISPR has little to do with Dolly the sheep. Dolly was born in 1996. While CRISPR saw some fundamental research from 1993-2005 it wasn't used for gene editing untill 2012 and was named breakthrough of the year in 2015.
Dolly did not have a very short lifespan. She lived for six years and was eventually put down to a lung disease that has no connection to her cloning.
The wikipedia page has details and citations, I will only quote the relevant paragraph here:
Dolly lived at the Roslin Institute throughout her life and produced several lambs.[5] She was euthanized at the age of six years due to a progressive lung disease. No cause which linked the disease to her cloning was found.[6]
It is better to either do some basic research before making direct claims or ask more open questions. Stating wildly erroneous things is sowing disinformation, and putting a question mark at the end is not a very good loophole. You are actively spreading misinformation.
Dolly happened long before CRISPR was a thing.
No. An entirely different technique was used for Dolly.
Eugenics fuck this facist development!
What's the fascist part?
there's a conversation here to have about curing mental illness or even how we conceive of mental illness. above commenter is skipping some steps and I hope you won't hold it against them. basically, it's should we be looking at altering the way someone is born before we alter the material conditions of our society that are causing them pain.
it's probably better to examine and ask people with Downs instead of just assuming. they have more of a voice and things to say on the matter than we currently want to hear because we automatically see their existence as a heinous burden. while that isn't exactly fascism, it is kind of a dick move.
not the guy you were replying to, I just thought I could translate their intention.
Your editing out human traites found not to your liking as if a Nazi and the third reich did thats Eugenics and facasium
This isn't a glowing in the dark petunia that also uses Crisper technology.
Being reduced to “cell function” is a very dehumanizing way of putting things .
Many humans are born as a variant of humanity. People who have different traits are not a disease it's society that pathologies other humans that fails to look at the oppressive environments that is the disease.
When a flower isn’t growing you change ITS ENVIRONMENT not blame the flower for not thriving.
Some people would rather not learn compassion, understanding, empathy, and humanity towards one another which in part disables anyone who isn't the main genotype and only want genetic copies of themselves to have authoritarian control over humanity again a tenet of facasium.
.
Official confirmation that Reddit liberals have arrived.
The account was since banned, but looking into it, it appeared to be an impersonator account that existed to assassinate the character of an actual person named Danica Jefferies and in reality had nothing to do with her.
I'm guessing some virulent fascist with an ax to grind regarding some of the actual person's journalism-adjacent work.