If you hit three identical twins out of a million people in range over a square mile region that would be interesting.
Actually, it's impossible to say whether it would be "interesting" or merely "expected", without specifying how many shots you had fired. You're not too clear on how to specify a scenario, are you?
It also might have a chance of being interesting if that were a valid analogy to what happened in the SCID-X1 trials, but it's not. The biggest dishonesty in this "analogy" is that there are actually (several) million *shots* (treated cell instances, each of which can "hit" some part of the genome), not "a million people" (targets) in the SCID-X1 case.
The second dishonesty is that while hitting the "same" people three times in a "square mile region" sounds pretty unlikely, it's tallhappy has DISHONESTLY changed the size of the "target size to target region size" ratio in a way that's DISHONESTLY inflating the odds against hitting a specific person. A human cross-section is roughly 8 square feet, meaning that to hit a specific person via a random shot into a "square mile region" is 5280 x 5280 : 8, or 3.5-million-to-1 odds against. Yes, that *is* rather unlikely.
HOWEVER, as the authors of the study itself pointed out in the material which I *QUOTED* for tallhappy -- so he has absolutely no excuse not to actually be aware of it -- the odds of "hitting" the LMO2 gene is actually only ~10,000-to-1 against. Tallhappy's flawed "analogy" of "people in a square mile region" DISHONESTLY presents a scenario which overinflates the difficulty by a factor of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY, just to give a false mental image which is several hundred times more unlikely than the *actual* case under discussion.
Tallhappy might be better served by trying to find fault with the authors' mathematical analysis of the actual dynamics of the gene therapy trial, rather than trying to hand-wave his case back to life by spinning tales of people scattered over large acreages and failing to run any numbers.
Also, to point out how sloppily tallhappy is stretching an analogy to try to frantically make excuses, I'd like to ask, just where in the hell would you find THREE identical TWINS? Last time I checked, twins come in pairs. (And *I'm* the one who allegedly doesn't understand biology?)
Not to risk my position in Darwin Central, but I think he meant three sets of twins out of a million people.
My question remains, are there multiple insertions, only some of which affect a target. Are there multiple targets where the insertion would have the desired effect?
I think I need a picture.