[nonbel]

No fraud is necessary, just sloppy interpretation of data.

Staying with Schuman et al (2015) linked in this thread, they start with 2.5 x 10^5 cells and end up with 5 x 10^4 to 2 x 10^5 three to four days later. Why are there fewer cells even without accounting for any division? Because the treatment is toxic. This is reported in many papers.

I don't know what the proliferation rate is like for the cells in the conditions of that study, but apparently up to 7 divisions in 4 days is considered plausible for T-cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367338

[jimrandomh]

If you're right and CRISPR doesn't actually work, then none of the papers published so far are replicable and you'll be vindicated in mere months. If that doesn't happen, then there's a flaw in the style of reasoning and research that led you to conclude the existing papers were flawed. I recommend jotting down a few notes about how you came to this conclusion, and making a calendar reminder to check how it turned out next year.

[nonbel]

>"If you're right and CRISPR doesn't actually work, then none of the papers published so far are replicable and you'll be vindicated in mere months."

Not at all. I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.

It appears to me the data can be interpreted in multiple ways. Two different "theories" can explain the same results. This is a much more insidious problem than mere non-replication (I haven't seen any direct replications regarding CRISPR either though). People can continue on the wrong path for a long time by interpreting good, reliable data incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis