I'm not sure it counts as "revolutionary" if it has helped only 1 person, and maybe as many as 10-12 per year. It's really the opposite of revolutionary, though I am very happy for this family and their daughter.
The article even talks about other trials also underway, so the parent comment doesn't even make any sense:
> Dr Robert Chiesa, from the bone-marrow transplant department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, said: "It is extremely exciting. Obviously, this is a new field in medicine and it's fascinating that we can redirect the immune system to fight cancer."
> The technology, though, only scratches the surface of what base editing could achieve.
> Dr David Liu, one of the inventors of base editing at the Broad Institute, told me it was "a bit surreal" that people were being treated just six years after the technology was invented.
> In Alyssa's therapy, each of the base edits involved breaking a section of genetic code so it no longer worked. But there are more nuanced applications where instead of switching an instruction off you can fix a defective one. Sickle-cell anaemia, for example, is caused by just one base change that could be corrected.
> So there are already trials of base editing under way in sickle-cell disease, as well as high cholesterol that runs in families and the blood disorder beta-thalassemia.
―https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/revoluti...