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

Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

lanternbioworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#81

Post by MagicMoonlight »

dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

They say it was because of FDA approval. As it was GM, in order to prove it is safe they wanted a study done on healthy people who are completely isolated from the human race so that they can't spread it. As nobody lives in a place where they are completely isolated from the human race it wasn't a very realistic. Then the patent ran out so it wasn't worth it for any drug company to proceed with approval because everyone else would just wait until they've paid the fee and then sell it too.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#82

Post by gattilorenz »

dehrmann wrote: post #61
dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

Why are they not pushing against fluoride en masse, then?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#83

Post by upon_drumhead »

Mistletoe wrote: post #47
crazygringo wrote: post #26

This is certainly an interesting idea, but there's absolutely no way for anyone to judge whether the claim on this page is bulletproof true, something plausible worth researching more, or just total nonsense. But the fact that there isn't a single link to any scientific paper or evidence whatsoever, or even a single person's name linked to the site (or source of funding or anything ), makes me assume this is just spa…

It seems hard to believe the ethanol producing bacterial strain would dominate your oral microbione for life from one application. But I’m willing to have an open mind and see some data. They need to get the data off of the Google drive and presented in a better way. I don’t click unknown Google drive links if I can avoid it.

Brushing your teeth and using mouthwash wipes out the majority of the micro biome. Application of the new strain shortly after could totally replace it wholesale.

That said, I can’t imagine there’s not other side effects that just aren’t known yet. The sample size and reporting (as far as we know) is just too small and meaningless.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#84

Post by MagicMoonlight »

dgreensp wrote: post #23

Charging $20,000 for a dose? Really?

As soon as you've had a dose you can just start kissing people and they will get it too. Or do what the government does in bioweapon simulations and just start spraying cities with it to see how easily it spreads.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#85

Post by malermeister »

danpalmer wrote: post #67
teddyh wrote: post #10

> stuck in patent hell […] for decades Patents only last for 20 years.

Technically yes, but there are caveats to this. Drug companies regularly create new variants with no distinguishing characteristics but which reset the patent clock, using litigation, trademarks, secrets, and other tactics to prevent the original variants being used.

...which is exactly what the folks at the link are proposing. From their Investment Proposal doc:

> However, we can create a new, derivative strain of SMaRT, which would be under new IP protections, and therefore, would very likely be of interest to a large pharma company.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#86

Post by martijnvds »

lwansbrough wrote: post #49
ta1243 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just EU, Switzerland too. That tells me everything I need to know, the site owner simply wants to steal my personal data and use it against me.

Surely that’s the reason and not the EU penalty for simply storing cookies “without consent” being so severe as to practically negate the value of EU citizens on the internet.

Cookies needed for a functional site can be used without notice.

The permission popups are only needed if you want to gather and store data. And why do that if you don't want to use it?

If you're really worried you can write a simple privacy policy stating your server stores some stuff like the client IP etc. (so you can do something like, block abuse) and then follow that policy to the letter by not doing anything else with the data you gather.

It's not hard.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#87

Post by themagician »

gattilorenz wrote: post #82
dehrmann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

Why are they not pushing against fluoride en masse, then?

Because they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings. If you don't opt for the fluoride treatment it's a wash.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#88

Post by guraf »

nemo44x wrote: post #52
dgreensp wrote: post #23

Charging $20,000 for a dose? Really?

What’s a fair price? Spending well over $20k on dental work over a lifetime is easy for many people. Adjust for inflation and it’s a steal. Cavities often lead to eventual root canals which require a crown which one day will probably require an extraction and a dental post and prosthetic tooth. That is probably around $8k or more for a single tooth at todays rates.

The average American probably spends about 20k in their lifetime, that's probably where they got their pricing from. They get a check-up a year and a handful of fillings with some prosthetics if they live long enough. Which totals to around 20k.

The average American also cannot afford 20k in one shot they can't even afford 2k.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#89

Post by realo »

fdye wrote: post #69

So within the existing population today there exist individuals who essentially never get cavities. The hypothesis for this has been 1. they don't eat sugar, or only fibrous foods, etc. 2. They have a genetic difference that builds stronger enamel or similar. I have never heard of anyone discussing bacteria in the mouth as a possible difference. Be interested to see if there is a natural strand that some people have…

I am one of those people who naturally are more or less immune to cavities. My dentist tells me it is because of the pH in my mouth.

I _do_ have to brush my teeth etc... though, because i tend to have a lot of plaque if i don't.

Apparently either it is cavities, or plaque. You must take care of your teeth!

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#90

Post by dgrin91 »

apsec112 wrote: post #65
dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

The average time from scientific discovery to commercial success in biotech is measured in decades. Barry Werth's book The Antidote goes into why it's so slow and complicated: https://www.amazon.com/Antidote-Inside-World-New-Pharma/dp/1...

Ok its been just about 4 decades. There appears to be 0 progress on this front.
Post reply on HN