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

141–150 of 158 posts

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

#141

Post by slibhb »

MostlyStable wrote: post #127
slibhb wrote: post #100

It's insane to voluntarily colonize your body with a virtually untested genetically engineered bacteria. The article claims it occurs naturally but they have no good data on its natural prevalence and they added two additional mutations to the natural strain they found. Even if it's safe, is it effective? The only way to tell is to enroll the people who are colonized in a long-running study. Are they doing that?

As the article points out: genetically engineered probiotics are already a thing. Everyone's risk tolerance is different, but this doesn't seem that big a deal to me personally. If it was already available for a more reasonable price, I'd probably get it tomorrow.

Really? Aren't you curious if it actually works?

Feels like there's an attitude here along the lines of "we know exactly where cavities come from, so we don't need empirical evidence that our treatment works". Seems dubious to me!

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

#142

Post by elcritch »

Grimblewald wrote: post #47
readthenotes1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, modern science involves humans, human interests, and human failings. Science practice is as flawed as the people that do it.

Yes, but the pay is shit, the social recognition is non existent, etc. So its not going to attract as many of the dark triad types like law or upper managment would.

Hmmm that’s an important factor. It’s one reason I still “trust in scientific process”. While it’s corruptible, imperfect, etc enough scientists still believe in the ideals of science. Otherwise why do it at all?

Still at a top institution like the FDA will attract the grafters and dark triad types in the field. Some of the most conceited self-centered types I’ve ever met are top researchers / academics and I’ve met a handful of VC CEOs. Look at the disdain for the “average joe” that leaks out of the emails between Dr Fauci and Dr Collins when they wanted to squash scientific debate on Covid (1).

1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barr...

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

#143

Post by rowanG077 »

Horffupolde wrote: post #78

With good hygiene and dental checkups twice a year, you can reasonably expect to avoid cavities altogether.

I used to believe this. Then I got a Girlfriend who I know brushes twice a day. Yet got cavities relatively often. I don't know why this is but there is a very large factor(or factors) that just makes some people much more vulnerable to cavities.

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

#144

Post by Natsu »

Retric wrote: post #67
Natsu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article gives this as the explanation of how it is supposed to work: BCS3-LI has four main genetic modifications: It produces a weak antibiotic, mutacin-1140, which kills competing oral bacteria. It’s immune to mutacin-1140, so it doesn’t kill itself. It metabolizes sugar through a different chemical pathway that ends in alcohol instead of lactic acid. It lacks a peptide that its species usually uses to arrange g…

> It produces a weak antibiotic, mutacin-1140, which kills competing oral bacteria. That alone isn’t enough for long term colonization as it’s not the only bacteria resistant to mutacin-1140.

There's also a graph claiming to show colonization results. I don't know how good it is, but it's supposedly actual experimental data.

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

#145

Post by lm28469 »

globular-toast wrote: post #118
lm28469 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

idk what kind of relationships you have but I can assure you this isn't a problem here

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

#146

Post by fastball »

hanniabu wrote: post #62
fastball wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried just using interdental brushes, like these[1]? Using these once a day did wonders for my gingivitis levels. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Sunstar-6505A-Soft-Picks-Advanced-Pac...

> did wonders for my gingivitis levels how do you know your gingivitis levels?

Less gum inflammation / bleeding / odor.

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

#147

Post by yosame »

mercutio2 wrote: post #120
yosame wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sweepi…

I'll definitely admit to some bias here, I've been reading Scott's content for 7ish years and I've gone from loving his content to being increasingly skeptical about his writings.

Something I feel Scott (and rationalists in general) tend to do is obfuscate their points in large walls of text, that allude to their actual reasons for writing without directly stating it. Aside from the beginning and end of the post, he never mentions the context or specifics, and just talks about broad counterarguments against selection bias in general. He doesn't bring up relevant specifics like "Aella does polls about sex to an audience she cultivated by doing porn", which seems like an obvious source of bias to me. Instead he gets the best of both worlds, if someone criticizes internet surveys he can point them to the post, without including any specifics that can be easily argued against. It requires a similarly sized wall of text to respond, which most people won't bother with. I personally used to argue that's just how he writes and it's not intentional, but stuff like the email leaks made me change my mind on that [1].

I do wish I'd picked a better example though, what I'm really trying to say is that Scott is definitely capable of analyzing a topic in bad faith. He has his biases like the rest of us, and they get infused into his writing.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/gWeIK6c

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

#150

Post by zo1 »

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…

One suggestion/theory I'd like to posit about this. There may be a third factor, and that is our "awareness" of what's in our mouth. After I eat food, I can't stand for any food that is lingering or stuck anywhere on my teeth. It gets picked out with my tongue, water, or something else. It could be that a lot of people that have bad oral "health" are unaware of the amount of food they're letting float around in their mouth because they never became aware or able to "sense" the insides of their mouth.
Post reply on HN