Live data from Hacker News

Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

lanternbioworks.com

111–120 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#111
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.

This is a well established route for new tech: first start by selling to the early adopters who have extra motivation and extra money, then use those funds to lower the costs by increasing scale then reach a bigger market.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#112

This is certainly an interesting idea, but there's absolutely no way for anyone to judge whether the claim on this page is bulletproof true, something plausible worth researching more, or just total nonsense. But the fact that there isn't a single link to any scientific paper or evidence whatsoever, or even a single person's name linked to the site (or source of funding or anything ), makes me assume this is just spa…

I take very significant issue with the fact their appendix A and B do not link to the original literature. When I was skimming the pitch deck, I thought they had done the experiments themselves, but it just looks like they copy pasted the results without proper citation. At best this appears as miscommunication, at worst misrepresentation of the work they have accomplished.

I work in medical startup space and the evidence we develop to prove our technology works typically has a higher threshold than what I've seen presented. I would want to see significantly more work done to demonstrate the scientific validity of this research. Do they intend to carry out any additional pre-clinical research (in vitro/in vivo)? Do they intend to do a clinical trial? It appears from their slide deck that they don't?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#113

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.

My old dentist would give me a pump of it and have me swish for a minute. Billed insurance $20. Insurance always said "$5," then they "forgave" the rest, probably because I'd be asking some questions about how that costs them $20.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It's not nonsense. Perhaps many don't, but most ask (at least where I am). They literally ask you when you go in for a cleaning if you want fluoride and then charge you. My current dentist charges $40. My last dentist (Orange County) charged $80, which was a total scam place I only went to once.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#116

This is certainly an interesting idea, but there's absolutely no way for anyone to judge whether the claim on this page is bulletproof true, something plausible worth researching more, or just total nonsense. But the fact that there isn't a single link to any scientific paper or evidence whatsoever, or even a single person's name linked to the site (or source of funding or anything ), makes me assume this is just spa…

>are there actual published results from legit scientists on this?

The main papers referenced by document on the page are by JD Hillman on 1987[0] (et al) and 2002[1]. A layman review was done few years later by PopSci[2]. This specific site and company appear to have no relation to Hillman or Oragenics (co-founded by Hillman) that holds a patent on this[3,4].

[0]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002203458706600...

[1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020695902160

[2]: https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-01/germ-could-sa...

[3]: https://www.oragenics.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/3...

[4]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9260488B2/en

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#117
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?

The patent has expired. The whole pitch here is to modify the tech a bit so they can patent it again and charge 20k/dose.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#118

The FDA requirements for the original clinical trial were wild: "...the FDA required them to find a cohort of 300 healthy 18-30 year olds who lived alone, not near a school zone, and had fully removable teeth." I can see why this makes sense, but no wonder they failed at enrolling the cohort.

Why the "not near a school zone"?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#119

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, w…

> I have yet to find interdental toothbrushes whose use doesn't lead to ingesting nylon.

Use the interdental toothpicks made of wood.

Post reply on HN