The article includes evidence that shows persistent colonization for a year after a single application. And it appears to be a steady prevalence for the last 6

The article includes evidence that shows persistent colonization for a year after a single application. And it appears to be a steady prevalence for the last 6 months of that. Now, to be fair, what I would have _liked_ to see is actually percent prevalense of the various cavity causing bacteria for that year, since that's the thing we really care about (in case this bacteria _isn't_ succesfully killing those strains). But it certainly appears that they have succesfully engineered a strain that can persist in your mouth after a single application (although they admittedly claim that this application needs to follow a special cleaning procedure to remove most of the existing bacteria) Your comment seems to really not address any of the specific information provided in the article and seems to be a generic response to the idea. I love hearing from experts who disagree with an article, it's important to hear those views. But this would have been a much more valuable comment if it could have responded more specifically to the claims and information in the article rather than the general idea.