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

Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

mcgill.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#161

Post by Grimblewald »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #18
Grimblewald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article. If you have not already, you might rethink consideration of this product.

The article provides some reasons to think that the treatment might not be fully effective even conditional on the mechanism of action working as described, not that it won't do anything at all.

The article provides some sound reasons for why

1. infecting yourself with this bacteria may not do what it is marketed to do

2. may result in suppression of beneficial microbiota

3. is not safe against lateral acquisition of a gene that is beneficial to the microbe but pathogenic to the human host

4. there is no real kill switch

for a lot of money, you might just end up buying a lot of health issues.

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#162

Post by Grimblewald »

cubefox wrote: post #60

> We are thus left with a product, Lumina, that cannot guarantee the prevention of future caries "Guarantees" are not strictly needed. What matters most is whether there is a substantial reduction of future caries, not whether it makes you totally immune to it. Say, if Lumina/BCS3-L1 "only" reduces cavities by 50%, it is already half as good (arguably) as a drug which prevented 100%. This would already be large progr…

I would say the author has some more substantial problems raised in the article. From the article, it seems the people pushing lumina as that we accept something which is unlikely to solve the issue (mutans is not the sole or even the probable cause of caries, just one of many) and this strain of bacteria is likely to pickup the pathogenic genes over time for higher lactic acid production, and it is no less likely than its pathogenic counterpart to produce biofilms. So now you have a bacterium that is more stubborn, and is at best going to out-compete a narrow band of microbes, some of which might be pathogenic, until it itself becomes pathogenic at some point. Now you have the same problems, with extra moving parts introduced where things can go wrong. What happens if your body becomes sensitive to the toxin this strain produces and you end up with horrific gingivitis that cannot be readily cured?

That isn't a great sales pitch.

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#163

Post by Salgat »

loco5niner wrote: post #157
Salgat wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that there is no strong proof that flossing actually helps. The U.S. Health department had to take down their recommendation to floss because they couldn't produce evidence of its efficacy.

Citation needed. Flossing IS important: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/gum-disease/ask-the-ex... https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics... . https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/oral-health/brush-oral-health/...

None of your sources are studies with a strong causal link between flossing and dental health. People who floss do have other good dental habits, so there's definitely a correlation that exists. And remember, I'm making no claims either way, I'm specifically stating the current scientific evidence. I personally floss.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/08/03/flossing-has-no-prove...

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#164

Post by loco5niner »

Salgat wrote: post #163
loco5niner wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Flossing IS important: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/gum-disease/ask-the-ex... https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics... . https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/oral-health/brush-oral-health/...

None of your sources are studies with a strong causal link between flossing and dental health. People who floss do have other good dental habits, so there's definitely a correlation that exists. And remember, I'm making no claims either way, I'm specifically stating the current scientific evidence. I personally floss. https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/08/03/flossing-has-no-prove...

My motto is you only have to floss the teeth you want to keep

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#165

Post by thecrash »

mapt wrote: post #73
zenexer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the participants could very easily spread it to other people. This wouldn’t just affect them. That’s why the trial was ultimately required to take place under quarantine. It’s not even a question of whether it would spread, but whether it might spread. There’s a reasonable chance that this bacterium would, in fact, spread, and nobody has proven otherwise. The FDA is doing its job here: it’s protecting the mas…

The FDA, however, is not regulating the spread of the 800 other known species of oral bacteria as well as presumably numerous unknown ones, which do cause some known harm. The extreme suspicion of commercially introduced anthropogenic agents seems a bit ridiculous in both natural ecology and the human microbiome. Prove this compound conclusively safe, but not these other ten million compounds we're just going to allo…

> The extreme suspicion of commercially introduced anthropogenic agents seems a bit ridiculous in both natural ecology and the human microbiome. Prove this compound conclusively safe, but not these other ten million compounds we're just going to allow to run wild.

With endemic organisms (or viruses) they just are going to run wild regardless of how we feel about it. There's no point in banning a naturally occurring algae because excluding it from the environment is not a practical option.

The only time when we have any strong control over what organisms are in an environment is when they don't yet exist there, but we have the ability to introduce them. This is our only technical choke-point, so it makes a lot of sense to make a big deal of that decision, and probably to be quite conservative about it. You can always let the cat out of the bag later, but you can never get it back in.

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#166

Post by csallen »

loco5niner wrote: post #155
csallen wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, while I'm at it, I'd suggest maybe putting an hour or two of research into how to make content… exciting? I know you're a dentist and a software engineer, not a YouTuber, but it's worth looking up a bit about what YouTubers and entertainers know about how to hold an audience's attention. Just a few small changes can probably result in a 1.5-3x improvement in the number of people who make it to the end of a vide…

Another perspective, I don't feel like these informational videos need to be exciting. For this, I feel like 'just the facts' are a breath of fresh air.

Maybe exciting is the wrong word, but compelling is a better one.

For example, just the order of how you present information matters. Compare these two approaches:

1. "If you don't floss enough, then may happen. Here's tips on how to floss: A, B, C."

2. "Here's tips on how to to floss: A, B, C. Btw, this can help prevent ."

The first is better. "Boring" information ceases to be boring and instead becomes compelling when you have a strong reason to want to know the information. Thus, it's important to hook people by giving them that motivational reason to watch/listen before you jump right into a video or article. Otherwise, you will likely only retain viewers who already arrive with their own personal motivations.

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#167

Post by hatenberg »

amarant wrote: post #110
cubefox wrote: post #60

> We are thus left with a product, Lumina, that cannot guarantee the prevention of future caries "Guarantees" are not strictly needed. What matters most is whether there is a substantial reduction of future caries, not whether it makes you totally immune to it. Say, if Lumina/BCS3-L1 "only" reduces cavities by 50%, it is already half as good (arguably) as a drug which prevented 100%. This would already be large progr…

I feel like this is a trend in online writing lately, and it's leading me to more and more withdraw from online discourse. Whenever someone introduces something that greatly helps with something, there are a bunch of people who start pointing out that, while the new solution is waay better than anything before it, it's not 100% perfect, and therefore "it's benefits are exaggerated" or similar. If the new thing is in…

Well literally any change removes money from some to give it to others. Side effect may be that people are better off (see Ozempic) but oh boy are the people losing money going to muddle the water / for investors as well as to fight the change.

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#168

Post by loco5niner »

csallen wrote: post #166
loco5niner wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another perspective, I don't feel like these informational videos need to be exciting. For this, I feel like 'just the facts' are a breath of fresh air.

Maybe exciting is the wrong word, but compelling is a better one. For example, just the order of how you present information matters. Compare these two approaches: 1. "If you don't floss enough, then may happen. Here's tips on how to floss: A, B, C." 2. "Here's tips on how to to floss: A, B, C. Btw, this can help prevent ." The first is better. "Boring" information ceases to be boring and instead becomes compelling w…

The very first video, pinned to the top, is titled "Why is oral hygiene important?" and lists both and .

The site follows approach 1 as you suggest (at least it does today).

Re: Reports of the death of dental cavities are greatly exaggerated

#169

Post by Salgat »

loco5niner wrote: post #156
Salgat wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that there is no strong proof that flossing actually helps. The U.S. Health department had to take down their recommendation to floss because they couldn't produce evidence of its efficacy.

If you want to be inspired to floss more often, just smell your floss after not flossing a few days. Disgusting, and that's convincing enough for me.

Counter point: that's the stuff you're shoving deeper into your gum line. And to reiterate, I do floss. However, I can see potential issues with it that may counter its effectiveness.
Post reply on HN