Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

lanternbioworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#101

Post by LegitShady »

nemo44x wrote: post #52
dgreensp wrote: post #23

Charging $20,000 for a dose? Really?

What’s a fair price? Spending well over $20k on dental work over a lifetime is easy for many people. Adjust for inflation and it’s a steal. Cavities often lead to eventual root canals which require a crown which one day will probably require an extraction and a dental post and prosthetic tooth. That is probably around $8k or more for a single tooth at todays rates.

thats not the way this works. Paying $20k over a lifetime vs an up front $20k payment means the up front $20k payment also includes the opportunity cost of the interest made - your up front payment of $20k is much more valuable than $20k over 60 or 70 years. That same $20k might be a large part of a downpayment on a mortgage and you'd get back many more times the value than if you spent it on your teeth all at once.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

themagician wrote: post #87
gattilorenz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they not pushing against fluoride en masse, then?

Because they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings. If you don't opt for the fluoride treatment it's a wash.

> they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings

This is nonsense. Many dentists, mine included, don’t apply fluoride. (They trust you to use toothpaste.)

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#103

Post by jonny_eh »

themagician wrote: post #87
gattilorenz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they not pushing against fluoride en masse, then?

Because they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings. If you don't opt for the fluoride treatment it's a wash.

And fluoride treatments likely don't do much. The main benefit of fluoride is from ingestion by children, while their teeth are forming.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#104

Post by bastawhiz »

apsec112 wrote: post #58
Analemma_ wrote: post #50

Doing a couple Google/Twitter searches for this company it's pretty obvious it's coming out of the Berkeley-area EA/rationalist cluster, which automatically makes me pretty skeptical. These people don't exactly have a stellar track record of medical startups (recall all the hype around MetaMed, which delivered precisely nothing).

Longevity biotech came from a similar milieu and has been doing very well: https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2023-07-17/t... (along with AI companies of course)

> Longevity biotech came from a similar milieu and has been doing very well

They're doing well numerically when it comes to funding but is there anyone who has actually lived materially longer as a result of the field?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#105

Post by boredpeter »

imjonse wrote: post #77

They have a pitch deck lamenting 90% of US adults have cavities, and they are 2x likely to get untreated if you are poor, then propose to market this for 20k$/dose. Saving the world, again, startup style.

$20k per dose Jesus H Christ. Rent seeking galore. Hopefully the patent has run out by now and others can get in on the action and make it affordable. There’s no way in hell this could possibly cost $20k. Is capitalism ever going to produce innovation that’s affordable to regular people again and not just benefiting the profiteering VC parasite class?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#107

Post by paulmd »

lwansbrough wrote: post #49
ta1243 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just EU, Switzerland too. That tells me everything I need to know, the site owner simply wants to steal my personal data and use it against me.

Surely that’s the reason and not the EU penalty for simply storing cookies “without consent” being so severe as to practically negate the value of EU citizens on the internet.

GDPR doesn't make it illegal to use cookies without consent.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#108

Post by themagician »

"This has, to our knowledge, caused no ill effects since."

That's the kicker. Damn near everything has side effects. How and why the FDA approves some things but not others is a quagmire, but the truth is that almost everything has side effects. Sometimes it feels like every approved drug ad you see on TV will have some lawsuit 20-30 years later. Look at where we are right now with ozempic. We know one of the side effects is thyroid cancer and doctors are prescribing it left and right while there is money to be made. In 10 years there will be a multi-billion dollar settlement for "misrepresenting the risks".

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#109

Post by jozvolskyef »

A conversation with my friend who was a dentistry student, ~2013.

  > [The friend, let's call her L, trying to dissuade me from drinking some fizzy drink]
  > J: But I won't get a cavity if the liquid doesn't touch my teeth.
  > L: Cavities are caused by the ensuing low ph environment, not by contact with teeth
  > J: Does that mean I can drink as much of it as I want as long as I rinse my mouth with water afterwards?
  > L, with a hint of defeat in her voice: yes.
After this conversation, I started the practice of rinsing my mouth with water after eating anything sugary or associated with tooth decay, as well as using interdental toothbrushes. My rate of cavities dropped from one on most years to zero - I haven't had a cavity since. Even the one noticed by my dentist at the time and left untreated for being too small hasn't developed yet, and that was ~ten years ago.

On a sidenote, I have yet to find interdental toothbrushes whose use doesn't lead to ingesting nylon.

Post reply on HN