Great info Tony. I'm still trying to get it completely clear in...

Great info Tony. I'm still trying to get it completely clear in my head though. Bearing in mind im no bioexec or gp, everything i know to date is as a result of my pyc investment lol.. My confusion is that in earlier discussions i thought pyc stated some of the more effective fpp's were derived from viral proteins or viral "somethings" and the reason they were effective was because they somehow piggybacked off the ability of viral compounds to penetrste cells.  Im trying to understand this and compare to the now reffered to "viral vecrors" that appeared to be promising in vitro yet now appear to have fallen when exposed to live immune systems. Sorry if my references are way off, just what im trying to understand. 
in the recording you reffered to i picked up the statement crispr cas 9 cell penetration is currently at best 1% and we believe 10% is not difficult, that sounds stunning and with 2nd or 3rd gen who knows.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am amazed how you can refer to these docs and recordings in such detail. I find the science fascinating but would love to  clearly understand it. The areas we are working in really do seem like they could lead to major breakthroughs if we can do what we claim.