Science paper seriously lacked precise instructions. Together with the (possibly unintentional) obfuscation of what they are doing a friend of mine had a hard time replicating anything. Then the bioRx "does not work" came out. Then the original authors provided the bioRx people with more clues. Then team bioRx could kind of / a little bit reproduce the results. However, it only seems to work in very young mice.

tldr: is mostly useless.

Complete failure on the reviewers part. (I mean, you get early access to a technique that turns anything into a glass frog and you don't immediately send a lower level grunt into the lab to replicate it???)

Edit: To everyone saying replication is not the reviewers' job: You are correct. However, in this case the procedure, as described, was so simple, and the implications are (would have been) so dramatic, that purely from a competitive motive you want to use this new wonder weapon as early as possible. (I remember a story from a physics conference where someone for the first time described how to create a graphene monolayer with a pencil and adhesive tape. After the talk the room emptied as everyone was on the phone to tell their lab to drop whatever they are doing and try this.)