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

271–280 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#271

Post by nemo44x »

imjonse wrote: post #91
nemo44x wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If this is such a revolutionary technology and it is cheap to mass produce, it should be like water fluoridation and similar state funded measures that increase overall population health. I am not arguing that $20k is more than regular dental work's cost over a lifetime, in the US at least, but that it's because dental work is so expensive is why oral health is so bad worldwide,Lifestyle, sugar consumtion and the lik…

Maybe it ought to be that way. But we believe in property rights and government confiscation of property isn’t something I support.

Might be the pols manage to find a way to buy the tech to give away freely to the people. Until then it’s theirs to distribute as they please until their exclusive rights expire.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#272

Post by brian_cunnie »

themagician wrote: post #108

"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 ef…

> doctors are prescribing it left and right while there is money to be made

I think that's painting with a broad brush the motivations of doctors. Case in point: when diagnosed with diabetes, my doctor suggested attempting a modified diet before she'd prescribe medications (such as ozempic). She got no money from a modified diet.

Furthermore, I don't think she would've gotten any money had she prescribed medication; in the US, there's a "Medicaid/Medicare anti-kickback statute" [0]

I suspect that those motivated by money would be more inclined to pursue a lucrative career in finance rather than the long, arduous, and expensive path of becoming a doctor.

[0] https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/it-legal-physic...

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#273

Post by gattilorenz »

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.

I’ve never heard of fluoride treatment. I never had it, I don’t think that’s common in Europe.

I was referring to fluoride in water and toothpaste.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#274

Post by lcordier »

inciampati wrote: post #225
lcordier wrote: post #132

Where we not here before? GMO bacteria producing alcohol... https://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-al... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtPNaMphl04 Also lactic-acid keeps other mouth bacteria under control, do we really want to mess with the balance?

And there is little reason to believe that ethanol producing bacteria have a selective advantage. Why would they be maintained in someone's mouth microbiome?

My worries are with translocation of oral bacteria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6427756/

Once it is in the gut you have Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) issues. (could have ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMWy2Rg6Ul4

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#275

Post by timmytokyo »

kelnos wrote: post #228
timmytokyo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their org chart includes "Aella", who is apparently acting as their "media advisor" [0]. That tells you just about everything you need to know about this organization. [0] https://nitter.net/Aella_Girl/status/1705772547781140541

So... people who are into sex work, fetishism, etc. aren't capable of being competent professionals? Not saying this company is or is not legit, but this doesn't seem like a reasonable vector for criticism.

Where did I say any of that? What a weird response.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#276

Post by astrange »

hadlock wrote: post #265
EGreg wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does brushing and mouthwash really eliminate your microbiome? I heard it does precious little. Most of the microorganisms live below the gumline and surfaces. If that were true it would eliminate caries! Please post links

Mouthwash (WITH alcohol) daily almost completely eliminates the need for daily brushing and flossing. This was later retracted by demand of the ADA to only say "as good or better than flossing"; from here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894074/ "mouth rinses would be considered to be “at least as good as” daily flossing if the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval" there are a number of studies on…

That would get rid of all the good bacteria too, which can't be… good.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#277

Post by astrange »

Karellen wrote: post #150
dehrmann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

US dentists make their money on cavities. Some other countries have healthcare systems where the primary goal is the patient outcome, and lowering the need for treatment is considered a win. If this were a thing, you'd expect that it might have been picked up and trialled in one of those places.

Universal healthcare systems very often don't extend to dentists. This is part of the reason British and Japanese stereotypically have bad teeth.

Meanwhile in the capitalist US, I haven't seen mine in months because her husband does her bookings and seems to be unable to remember to call me back. Small business owners usually don't profit maximize, and unfortunately it'd be better if they did.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#278

Post by astrange »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #237
dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

A one time cure for cavities is just bad for business! Same with RISUG, a cheap semi-permanent reversible male contraceptive made with a tiny piece of plastic (which would destroy condoms and female hormonal pill - never got to the western world) or ocumetics, the bionic eyes promising 20/20 for everyone with a simple cataract surgery (which seems to be stuck in a endless cycle of getting bought, and doing trials).

No, that hardly ever matters.

1. There's always new people.

2. If you don't do it, someone else will, because they'd rather be paid once than not have any business.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#279

Post by astrange »

boredpeter wrote: post #168
jefftk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hopefully the patent has run out by now and others can get in on the action and make it affordable. The patent has run out, and in the ~20y since it expired no one has tried to revive the idea. Why are you faulting the people who are finally picking the idea back up instead of all the people who could have but didn't over the last ~20y?

I’m faulting them because it’s nothing more than a get rich quick scheme. Another comment even noted they are slightly tweaking it so they can get another patent for it. The government should be funding this and making it available to the general population at an affordable price instead of just having the free market “figure it out” and making something affordable only to the ultra rich. But the US is a country wher…

If they want to pay for it they can, but the most effective way for public healthcare to reduce costs is by not paying for expensive things.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#280

Post by astrange »

fdye wrote: post #69

So within the existing population today there exist individuals who essentially never get cavities. The hypothesis for this has been 1. they don't eat sugar, or only fibrous foods, etc. 2. They have a genetic difference that builds stronger enamel or similar. I have never heard of anyone discussing bacteria in the mouth as a possible difference. Be interested to see if there is a natural strand that some people have…

You should assume that everything related to digestion is caused by gut bacteria.

Nerds love saying things is "genetics" because they think it'd make humanities types mad if something was genetics. But it's like lupus. It's never genetics. (Except celiac.)

Post reply on HN