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

A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#111

Post by inglor_cz »

jseliger wrote: post #17
phero_cnstrcts wrote: post #2

> The FDA demanded a study of 100 subjects, all of whom had to be “age 18-30, with removable dentures, living alone and far from school zones”. Hillman wasn’t sure there even were 100 young people with dentures, but the FDA wouldn’t budge from requiring this impossible trial. Hillman gave up and switched to other projects Interesting that the FDA can request such things. Would be a good way to block disruptive produc…

The FDA is often bad: https://jakeseliger.com/2023/07/22/i-am-dying-of-squamous-ce... . It is good at "protecting" people from things that might help them. Like many others, I'm being protected from treatments that might harm me, so the cancer I've got can kill me instead.

Hello Jake, I just wanted to tell you that I admire your fighting spirit. Best of luck to you and your wife.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#112

Post by hedora »

Beijinger wrote: post #64
sgt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rinse my mouth regularly with coffee and chocolate containing sugar. I always thought it was a bad thing. Bring on the donuts!

I eliminated regular sugar to a bare minimum in my diet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly

Pure carbs (so anything with white flour) is pretty close to pure sugar. I increased my fiber intake by trying to make sure that anything with carbs has a higher % daily value of fiber than carbohydrates.

I've been feeling a lot better, and have been slowly losing weight ever since.

Calorie counting worked OK for me in the past, but then I gained the weight back.

Anyway, from what I can tell, when health studies show that "processed foods" are unhealthy, they invariably just mean foods that have had the fiber replaced with sugar and salt.

Of course, studies show that not doing what I just said to do causes heart disease, diabetes, obesity, gastrointestinal ailments, and many other health problems.

I wish some whole foods competitor would pop up that only sold low-salt, high-fiber foods with no added sugar. Most grocery stores stock such things, but it's less than 5% of the selection, so finding it is always like looking for a needle in a haystack. The hypothetical store could even have a sign out front saying "shopping here will significantly increase your life expectancy".

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#113

Post by inglor_cz »

rewmie wrote: post #81

I'm going off on a tangent here, but whenever I read about progress in dentistry I always get the feeling they are just sugarcoating medieval practices. In an era where mankind routinely flies people into space, the primary tools leveraged by orthodontists is still drilling and pulling teeth, and teeth replacement is still implemented as lodging metal spikes onto the jawbone. It sounds like the only progress that we…

"In an era where mankind routinely flies people into space ... replacement is still implemented as lodging metal spikes"

Osseo-integration of titanium was first observed in the 1940s, so the technology for modern dental implants is approximately of the same age as space rockets. (Wernher von Braun designed the first A4/V2 at almost precisely the same time.)

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#114

Post by Symmetry »

phero_cnstrcts wrote: post #2

> The FDA demanded a study of 100 subjects, all of whom had to be “age 18-30, with removable dentures, living alone and far from school zones”. Hillman wasn’t sure there even were 100 young people with dentures, but the FDA wouldn’t budge from requiring this impossible trial. Hillman gave up and switched to other projects Interesting that the FDA can request such things. Would be a good way to block disruptive produc…

In 2020 the FDA wanted people developing tests for Covid-19 to get some SARS to make sure their test didn't accidentally show a false positive when SARS was present. But of course there was no way the CDC was going to hand out SARS to random research labs.

I'm pretty sure this is just someone at the FDA trying to be diligent in their own way. Mostly this is downstream of powerful companies being able to sue the FDA for allowing things if the FDA doesn't follow procedure, which the FDA wants to avoid.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#115

Post by Symmetry »

elcritch wrote: post #3
phero_cnstrcts wrote: post #2

> The FDA demanded a study of 100 subjects, all of whom had to be “age 18-30, with removable dentures, living alone and far from school zones”. Hillman wasn’t sure there even were 100 young people with dentures, but the FDA wouldn’t budge from requiring this impossible trial. Hillman gave up and switched to other projects Interesting that the FDA can request such things. Would be a good way to block disruptive produc…

Somehow I keep loosing confidence in the FDA. That basically sounds like a special interest group giving unreasonable requirements to prevent it succeeding. What’s the chance that some of the FDA personnel were linked to companies in dental or dental care products? Perhaps some national association of dentists?

It's actually a lot better than it used to be. You wouldn't see a situation where beta blockers were available in Europe a decade ahead of the US nowadays.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#116

Post by ghodith »

gumby wrote: post #33

> They offered my wife and me free samples (based on her work, not as compensation for writing this post); she accepted, and I’m still debating. Given that it's an oral colonist it seems likely that the author has tried the free sample as well, even if they were to live in a no-kissing houshold. The title is a lovely garden path sentence: "A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay…

> Given that it's an oral colonist it seems likely that the author has tried the free sample as well, even if they were to live in a no-kissing houshold.

The author addresses this under the header "2.1: As users kiss their loved ones, who kiss others in turn, will this spread exponentially and take over the world?"

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#117

Post by renewiltord »

rubidium wrote: post #46

Anecdote time: My great grandmother lived to be 102 and never had a cavity. Kept all her teeth to the end. One time, an orderly who thought she was just being senile tried to reach into her mouth to take out her teeth (thinking she had dentures). My great grandmother bit that person; hope they learned not all old people are senile! I’m 40% of the way there. No cavities and rave reviews from my dentist. I brush—-best…

It would be cool if you would submit your DNA to a public database. It could be useful at some future time.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#118

Post by globular-toast »

lm28469 wrote: post #99
globular-toast wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure ? My girlfriend says one thing but I observe the daily unaccounted for consumption of fruit and sweets. Fair enough if you also consume lots of sweets, though.

100% sure, first because I trust her and second because there is no way I wouldn't notice given our current work/life situation

Sorry to say but you're naive to think you can trust someone when it comes to diet. There's a reason human diet studies are considered very difficult if not impossible (given ethical requirements, although of course it can be done unethically like making people afraid of saturated fats for no good reason). Fair enough on the second point, though, I believe you.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#119

Post by gen220 »

hedora wrote: post #112
Beijinger wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I eliminated regular sugar to a bare minimum in my diet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly

Pure carbs (so anything with white flour) is pretty close to pure sugar. I increased my fiber intake by trying to make sure that anything with carbs has a higher % daily value of fiber than carbohydrates. I've been feeling a lot better, and have been slowly losing weight ever since. Calorie counting worked OK for me in the past, but then I gained the weight back. Anyway, from what I can tell, when health studies show…

> low-salt, high-fiber foods with no added sugar

Only half tongue-in-cheek, but if you stick to the produce and dried goods sections, this is pretty much every grocery store!

In all seriousness, yes it's a problem. But unfortunately it's an unholy trinity of consumers (give me flavor!), grocers (give me shelf life!) and producers (give me lower costs!) that is practically impossible to dislodge beyond generational shifts in preferences (which are, indeed, happening ime).

Short of that, the best thing we can do is to do as much "processing" ourselves as possible, and gradually expand one brand/product at a time as you gain trust and do your research.

Re: A genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes bacteria causing tooth decay

#120

Post by mercutio2 »

yosame wrote: post #91
Sankozi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is an example of analyzing in bad faith. In the linked article there is a whole section that starts with "Selection bias is disastrous if". He definitely does not says anything remotely close to "twitter polls are exactly as good evidence as a scientific study".

It's essentially the thesis of the post. I will say the "exactly" part was a bit hyperbolic. He starts by stating that people say his surveys and Aella's Twitter polls (which he calls surveys) have selection bias, meaning the conclusions don't count. He then goes on to say (paraphrasing): "people say surveys have selection bias, but don't think real scientific studies have selection bias" and in the next paragraph sa…

His thesis is “you should not discount twitter polls with large sample sizes out of hand as totally meaningless, or if you’re going to, you need a better reason than this long list of issues that twitter polls share with RCTs.”

The contrapositive of his thesis is “there is some interesting signal worth paying attention to in large twitter polls, selection bias is in many unexpected places so be skeptical about sweeping conclusions even in RCTs”.

Your characterization of this as “so twitter polls are just as good as RCTs” seems wildly uncharitable to me.

Post reply on HN