Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic • Hacker News Board

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#11

Post by samrmay » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:16 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #5

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation for why this particular regimen is dangerous. Instead this is a rather lengthy essay which ultimately relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. Not to say I think people should just put random things into their bodies - It is indeed probably not the best idea. That said, I'm not sure I learned anything new after reading this.

The article does specifically mention that the strain used produces an antibody which survives in the gut and may demolish your gut microbiome. Also one of the footnotes mentions that producing alcohol instead of lactic acid as a byproduct may not be as harmless at it seems.

I'm also not sure that taking issue with a company bypassing systemic protections against dangerous drugs is an appeal to authority.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#12

Post by 1939416836 » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:16 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #5

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation for why this particular regimen is dangerous. Instead this is a rather lengthy essay which ultimately relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. Not to say I think people should just put random things into their bodies - It is indeed probably not the best idea. That said, I'm not sure I learned anything new after reading this.

The article lists several reasons why the regimen is dangerous: if you get the bacteria that you're supposed to be getting, that bacteria will be continuously producing an antibiotic. Having bacteria constantly dosing you with antibiotics can lead to all the sorts of issues that long-term antibiotics present. Secondly, the article claims, probiotic manufacturing is very susceptible to contamination. Luckily, there are steps a manufacturer can take to avoid contamination, but it doesn't appear that this manufacturer is taking these steps.

All of this is stated in the article, if you missed this on your first read, you might consider re-reading it :)

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#13

Post by nrdgrrrl » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:18 PM UTC

atuladhar wrote: post #10

deelowe wrote: post #5

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation for why this particular regimen is dangerous. Instead this is a rather lengthy essay which ultimately relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. Not to say I think people should just put random things into their bodies - It is indeed probably not the best idea. That said, I'm not sure I learned anything new after reading this.

What a strange take! Not an expert (or even a beginner) in this area by any means, but I definitely learned a lot, and I thought the author pretty clearly laid out why they think this probiotic may not be good for your body. Did we read the same blog post?

[dead]

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#14

Post by ravenstine » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:19 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #8

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modifie…

It's as if most of us don't have a background in biology or genetics.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#15

Post by dmbche » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:19 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #8

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modifie…

You remind me - wasn't Crispr going to cure Malaria by modifying mosquitoes and releasing them in the wild? Wonder how thats going.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#16

Post by canucker2016 » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:20 PM UTC

One could try gum with xylitol instead, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol

from https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archive...

"In addition, xylitol has a number of other effects on S mutans that may account for some of its clinical effects in caries reduction. Short-term consumption of xylitol is associated with decreased S mutans levels in both saliva and plaque.15 Long-term habitual consumption of xylitol appears to have a selective effect on S mutans strains. This results in selection for populations that are less virulent and less capable of adhering to tooth surfaces and, thus, are shed more easily from plaque into saliva."

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#17

Post by SkyMarshal » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:22 PM UTC

A simpler alternative is xylitol. Not a drug, no FDA approval required. It's a plant-based sweetener that cavity-causing mouth bacteria love to ingest, but which provides no sustenance to them. It essentially fills them up and then causes them to starve them to death, helping maintain minimum mouth bacteria. No bacteria, no cavities. Get it in mints or gum like Zellies or PUR (the only two I've found that don't include Titanium Dioxide). Take one a day after brushing in the evening so it kills bacteria overnight.

https://zellies.com/

https://thepurcompany.com/

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101

(Also if you have pets, make sure they don't get any, xylitol isn't good for them, especially dogs)

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#18

Post by grahamplace » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

dmbche wrote: post #15

maxbond wrote: post #8

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modifie…

You remind me - wasn't Crispr going to cure Malaria by modifying mosquitoes and releasing them in the wild? Wonder how thats going.

Gene driving is the specific technique you’re referring to:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10795774/

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#19

Post by aspectmin » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:26 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #8

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modifie…

>Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified?

Hubris?

I'm all for progress and innovation. We need to couch such progress through the lens of thinking through the potential impacts of such progress though.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#20

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, May 15, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

dmbche wrote: post #15

maxbond wrote: post #8

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modifie…

You remind me - wasn't Crispr going to cure Malaria by modifying mosquitoes and releasing them in the wild? Wonder how thats going.

That's a technique used since the 1950s with great success against the parasitic screw-worm; it's now gone from North and Central America. Every year we release millions to keep them in South America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique

https://www.fao.org/4/u4220t/u4220T0g.htm

> In February 1991, after 15 years of production and the sterilization of 220 billion insects, Mexico was declared screwworm free. The screwworm rearing plant in Mexico, the only one of its kind, continues producing flies on a large scale for the eradication efforts under way in Central America and now provides FAO's Screwworm Emergency Centre for North Africa (SECNA) with sterile flies to combat the recent outbreak in North Africa.