This article discusses the goals of Dr Lucas Harrington and his company Preventive to conduct research into gene editing in embryos to prevent the development of "severe disease".

This article is clear and interpretable, but there are significant issues with evidence and balance:

- No other scientific experts were quoted here apart from Harrington. The other source is a legal and ethics expert (an important perspective), but is not a scientist.

- There is no mention of what "severe disease" means, and this phrase is very option to interpretation. There is a very big range of health conditions and diseases that could come under this umbrella, so being specific is important.

- There are some diseases that we know are caused by a mutation in a specific gene and if you have that mutation, you definitely develop the disease. However, most diseases don't work like this, and instead are caused by a contribution of many genes with small effects, as well as environmental factors. These specifics aren't made very clear here.

- The discussion of "super babies" is incredibly ethically controversial because this technology could be a slippery slope to eugenics. This side of the argument is not discussed.

- There is no input in this article from people who live with conditions that would be subject to the gene editing proposed here, or their families. Their opinion is incredibly important on such an ethically controversial topic.

The article is relatively well balanced in that it highlights that there is very little scientific evidence to support these methods, and scientific experts are consulted and quoted.

The vagus nerve is certainly important and plays a role in stress and the brain-body relationship. However, there is very little evidence to say that it is something you can train and there is no evidence provided that the benefit you get from these classes or external stimulators is specifically to do with changing the function of your vagus nerve.

The article has a large focus on experiences of some people using these methods to help their wellbeing. These are important perspectives. However, it's importnat that all tools are assessed using randomised control trials so we can show whether the benefit is because it really works or if it is simply down to placebo - you feel a benefit because you're doing something and taking action, not because it's having a physical effect on your body.

The article is correct to state that none of this should be used as medical advice or treatment and that if you are unwell you should always get medical advice as soon as possible.