I don't see an issue with the statements that were made. An increase in dystrophin levels to .28% of normal levels, indicates that without the drug, the dystro

I don't see an issue with the statements that were made. An increase in dystrophin levels to .28% of normal levels, indicates that without the drug, the dystrophin level was at .093% of normal levels. (.093% * 3 = .28%) The drug succeeds at raising dystrophin levels, but the levels are still well below those of a healthy individual. (Which is the center-point of the whole debate) A recessive x-linked trait will be more likely in men than women, because men have one x chromosome, and women have two. This means that a male with an x-chromosome with the Duchenne gene will always have Duchenne, whereas a woman would need a copy on each of her x chromosomes, assuming the woman isn't XY with androgen insensitivity, or XXY, etc. A common example of an x-recessive trait would be colorblindness. Genetic colorblindness affects about 8% of men and .5% of women. Since men always have colorblindness if they carry the gene, we can use the prevalence in men as the population prevalence, assuming colorblindness doesn't play a role in sexual selection (doubtful, given the fact that fashion sense probably plays a role). .08.08 = .0064, which is pretty close to the prevalence of colorblindness in women. Duchenne affects 1/3600 men. Assuming 1/3600 is the prevalence of the gene in the population, we'd expect 1/3600 1/3600 = 1/12960000, or 1 in thirteen million women to have it. So we'd expect about 25 female cases in the US, and about 83000 male cases. Edit: This is assuming having two Duchenne genes will still lead to Duchenne. If 3x normal levels of dystrophin leads to clinical relief, it's possible that having two genes allows for enough dystrophin production to prevent Duchenne. I don't know enough about the pathways involved, but it's possible.