Tyler Smith on Nostr: npub1trdnq…gussx that does not appear to accurately reflect the linked paper. They ...

npub1trdnqrfstufc45awha43p6xy2n0v6czuhapzh4r09hap08dg0c6s9gussx (npub1trd…ussx) that does not appear to accurately reflect the linked paper. They report off-target mutations in GE are much lower than conventional breeding. The number 200 refers to mutations associated with tissue culture, not gene editing itself, and most are non-coding. There is no claim in the paper that these mutations pose any health risk to humans. It is on the whole supportive of GE, so I'm not sure why it is cited as evidence of health risks associated with the technology.