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

Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

trevorklee.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#21

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

slibhb wrote: post #2

> Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea What about off-label medication? I don't think taking Lumina is smart, more or less for the reasons the author ennumerates. I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category!

Yeah, God forbid anyone take ginger or mint for an upset stomach, chamomile tea to relax, or melatonin to help them fall asleep. Or, more on topic, a toothpaste with FDA approved fluoride and FDA approved biomin which, when combined, lacks FDA approval. I never make any decisions that have not been approved officially by the US government

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#23

Post by maxbond »

ravenstine wrote: post #14
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.

Fair enough but I do feel like our everyday experience with biology informs this. If you cultivate a certain color of rose and release it into the wild, you wouldn't expect that color to persist, right? Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel like that's intuitive. Maybe the technology is sexy and dazzling and that makes it more difficult to engage critically.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#24

Post by renewiltord »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #17

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 inclu…

Gives some of us rocket powered shits though. I’ve been known to hit escape velocity at the border mall in Basel. Well contained within the inverted engine bell and served well by powerful flush mechanism.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#25

Post by bee_rider »

Aurornis wrote: post #4

> I’ve also been disappointed for some months to see how many people I respect (and some I don’t respect) have been using it/promoting it. Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea, no matter what rationalist bloggers with MDs, porn star/escort/sex researchers, Twitter guys, or conservative firebrands who get sick immediately after taking the unapproved drug tell you. The "rationalist community" has always been quirky an…

I think the idea that an organization like the FDA could have thought hard about ideas like “thinking about risk and probability” before contrarian bloggers arrived to save us from ourselves is offensive to rationalists.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#26

Post by dmbche »

ceejayoz wrote: post #20
dmbche wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 screwwo…

Incredible! Thanks for the link.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#27

Post by pragma_x »

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…

> and that it'll stay genetically modified?

I honestly think the play here is to have customers continually inoculate with the same, or even improved, versions of their modified bacteria. Possibly with a very strong antibiotic course in between if a clean slate is needed. That would provide ample room to stay on top of mutations and gene swapping in-situ. Otherwise, you don't have a continuous revenue model or a successful product.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#28

Post by ceejayoz »

maxbond wrote: post #23
ravenstine wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fair enough but I do feel like our everyday experience with biology informs this. If you cultivate a certain color of rose and release it into the wild, you wouldn't expect that color to persist, right? Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel like that's intuitive. Maybe the technology is sexy and dazzling and that makes it more difficult to engage critically.

Depends on the plant. I've got two GMO plants in my house right now; glow-in-the-dark petunias (https://light.bio/) and purple tomatoes (https://www.norfolkhealthyproduce.com/). The tomatoes breed true (i.e. the seeds have the gene); the petunias do not and must be cloned via propagation.

Roses, fruit trees, etc. are the latter.

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#29

Post by SkyMarshal »

renewiltord wrote: post #24
SkyMarshal wrote: post #17

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 inclu…

Gives some of us rocket powered shits though. I’ve been known to hit escape velocity at the border mall in Basel. Well contained within the inverted engine bell and served well by powerful flush mechanism.

Lol, true it can. Were you just eating one a day and still suffered that?

Re: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

#30

Post by russdill »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #17

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 inclu…

Just to be clear, it's not that it's not good for them, it's highly toxic
Post reply on HN