Ugh. Overreaching rhetoric like this with no context or detail signal silly pop science writing rather than anything substantive.
By "in humans" I meant using cas9 in vivo to edit the genome of a living human person.
Making cas9 work on a person's genome, in vivo, is still not possible and I believe it would take a lot of technical work to make it actually useful (but it's certainly along the lines I have been anticipating for several decades). Sure, you could put cas9 in a pill, but you would still need a way to get the cas9 into the right cells and integrate efficiently, without it going into the wrong cells, or causing all sorts of unintended side effects.
Sophistry. CRISPR on human embryos (which were going to be discarded) is CRISPR on humans: human cells were geneticly edited with CRISPR. The point has been proven - human biology is not some special snowflake that CRISPR will uniquely fail upon.
If you want context just google it.
Plenty of information exists for CRISPR and it is definitely substantive.