19 ms·

Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic

201 points by gdudeman 2y ago

slibhb 2y ago
> Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea What about off-label medication? I don't think taking Lumina is smart, more or less for the reasons the author ennumerates. I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category!
- axblount 2y ago
  Off-label drugs are still approved by the FDA for their original purpose.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  >I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. The author has provided some solid arguments that this is not the case. Why do you think so?
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    I actually don't think the author provided very good arguments. It was my only real beef with the article: "this might do bad things" gets rounded off to "this is dangerous", even though his sources don't say the bad things will happen. They simply might happen.
    - cool_dude85 2y ago
      Nobody can predict the future. Bad things only ever "can" happen until they do - they never "will" happen. The author explains why and how those things are possible.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The Precautionary Principle is problematic applied to public policy generally, but it's the accepted practice in medicine. You can argue it shouldn't be, but you shouldn't pretend you'd be in the mainstream with that argument.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > What about off-label medication? Off-label means prescribed for a different purpose than originally indicated, at the prescriber's discretion. The medication must still have past safety testing and have shown efficacy for something. > I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category! You can sell a lot of products as-is without FDA approval. However, making substantial claims about that product's medicinal properties is regulated in a different manner. These people are trying to have the best of both worlds: Making extraordinary claims about preventing a medical condition, while also avoiding any participation in the FDA process or even funding standard trials. I think the most obvious counter argument is that this could easily be a massively successful drug if it works as well as they claim. The TAM is everyone with teeth who wants to keep them, which is basically everyone. Yet instead they've chosen this weird path of embracing the rationalist community and supplement nuts, which is a much smaller market.
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  Yeah, God forbid anyone take ginger or mint for an upset stomach, chamomile tea to relax, or melatonin to help them fall asleep. Or, more on topic, a toothpaste with FDA approved fluoride and FDA approved biomin which, when combined, lacks FDA approval. I never make any decisions that have not been approved officially by the US government
Aurornis 2y ago
> I’ve also been disappointed for some months to see how many people I respect (and some I don’t respect) have been using it/promoting it. Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea, no matter what rationalist bloggers with MDs, porn star/escort/sex researchers, Twitter guys, or conservative firebrands who get sick immediately after taking the unapproved drug tell you. The "rationalist community" has always been quirky and edgy, but iterations in recent years have felt increasingly reactionary and contrarian at all costs. Being anti-FDA has been a meme in the rationalist community for several years, especially since Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex / Astral Codex Ten) started writing anti-FDA pieces. (Side note: The conservative firebrand they're talking about is a person who was caught using a pseudonym to post extremely biased, racist material, who has somehow remained prominent in the community despite the revelations). This appears to have primed the community for "FDA bad" takes, which has triggered their contrarian tendencies to assume that anything that goes against the FDA must therefore be good. A supplement maker publicly defying the FDA and pushing out a miracle treatment without the normal rigor of human trials and safety reviews is the type of behavior that would have triggered skepticism from the rationalist community. Yet because the community has been primed with "FDA bad, anti-FDA good" memes for years and the person pitching this supplement is vaguely connected to the rationalist community, this product has triggered a lot of adoration and praise from the community. The product also exists in a space that is difficult to disprove: The effects of any anti-cavity product can only really be shown over very long periods of time in controlled settings. Anyone who gets a cavity while using this product will surely be dismissed as having a pre-existing cavity growing, or poor oral hygiene, or being a statistical anomaly, or any other number of excuses. At the same time, I'm sure we're about to hear endless anecdotes from people who have been taking the supplement and haven't had any cavities (while ignoring the fact that most people also don't get cavities in a given year, even without this magic probiotic). It feels like the perfect storm for a grift, and this company is taking the lead and running with it. It's weird that a blog post advising some caution and skepticism for a supplement pusher making extraordinary claims who has refused to participate in the normally expected clinical trials. It's equally weird to see the self-described rationalist community throwing scientific rigor to the wind and embracing marketer's claims. I don't entirely understand what's going on here, but I think it's strange that an article advising a modicum of skepticism for supplement pushers is now considered a contrarian take in the rationalist community.
maxbond 2y ago
Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modified bacteria to adopt the same strategy? I imagine that you could, at least on paper, create a Rube Goldberg machine in their genes that, say, killed them if they produced lactic acid, and made it very difficult to delete these genes without destroying their ability to reproduce. But you'll probably also handicap them in the process and make it difficult for them to adapt to competitive adaptations from other bacteria.
- ravenstine 2y ago
  It's as if most of us don't have a background in biology or genetics.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    Fair enough but I do feel like our everyday experience with biology informs this. If you cultivate a certain color of rose and release it into the wild, you wouldn't expect that color to persist, right? Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel like that's intuitive. Maybe the technology is sexy and dazzling and that makes it more difficult to engage critically.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Depends on the plant. I've got two GMO plants in my house right now; glow-in-the-dark petunias (https://light.bio/ https://light.bio/) and purple tomatoes (https://www.norfolkhealthyproduce.com/ https://www.norfolkhealthyproduce.com/). The tomatoes breed true (i.e. the seeds have the gene); the petunias do not and must be cloned via propagation. Roses, fruit trees, etc. are the latter.
      - SamBam 2y ago
deelowe 2y ago
I was hoping for a more thorough explanation for why this particular regimen is dangerous. Instead this is a rather lengthy essay which ultimately relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. Not to say I think people should just put random things into their bodies - It is indeed probably not the best idea. That said, I'm not sure I learned anything new after reading this.
- atuladhar 2y ago
  What a strange take! Not an expert (or even a beginner) in this area by any means, but I definitely learned a lot, and I thought the author pretty clearly laid out why they think this probiotic may not be good for your body. Did we read the same blog post?
  - nrdgrrrl 2y ago
    [dead]
- eynsham 2y ago
  How does the section titled ‘Category 2: the known health risks of BCS3L-1’ problematically appeal to authority? It seems to about as much as appealing to known results that swallowing vast quantities of lead is a bad idea would. (The other sections certainly appeal to authority, although not obviously fallaciously to me, but that would be to go over quite tired ground about medical regulation.)
- samrmay 2y ago
  The article does specifically mention that the strain used produces an antibody which survives in the gut and may demolish your gut microbiome. Also one of the footnotes mentions that producing alcohol instead of lactic acid as a byproduct may not be as harmless at it seems. I'm also not sure that taking issue with a company bypassing systemic protections against dangerous drugs is an appeal to authority.
- 1939416836 2y ago
  The article lists several reasons why the regimen is dangerous: if you get the bacteria that you're supposed to be getting, that bacteria will be continuously producing an antibiotic. Having bacteria constantly dosing you with antibiotics can lead to all the sorts of issues that long-term antibiotics present. Secondly, the article claims, probiotic manufacturing is very susceptible to contamination. Luckily, there are steps a manufacturer can take to avoid contamination, but it doesn't appear that this manufacturer is taking these steps. All of this is stated in the article, if you missed this on your first read, you might consider re-reading it :)
canucker2016 2y ago
One could try gum with xylitol instead, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol from https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archives/ly-28-2.pdf https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archive... "In addition, xylitol has a number of other effects on S mutans that may account for some of its clinical effects in caries reduction. Short-term consumption of xylitol is associated with decreased S mutans levels in both saliva and plaque.15 Long-term habitual consumption of xylitol appears to have a selective effect on S mutans strains. This results in selection for populations that are less virulent and less capable of adhering to tooth surfaces and, thus, are shed more easily from plaque into saliva."
SkyMarshal 2y ago
A simpler alternative is xylitol. Not a drug, no FDA approval required. It's a plant-based sweetener that cavity-causing mouth bacteria love to ingest, but which provides no sustenance to them. It essentially fills them up and then causes them to starve them to death, helping maintain minimum mouth bacteria. No bacteria, no cavities. Get it in mints or gum like Zellies or PUR (the only two I've found that don't include Titanium Dioxide). Take one a day after brushing in the evening so it kills bacteria overnight. https://zellies.com/ https://zellies.com/ https://thepurcompany.com/ https://thepurcompany.com/ https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101 (Also if you have pets, make sure they don't get any, xylitol isn't good for them, especially dogs)
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Gives some of us rocket powered shits though. I’ve been known to hit escape velocity at the border mall in Basel. Well contained within the inverted engine bell and served well by powerful flush mechanism.
  - SkyMarshal 2y ago
    Lol, true it can. Were you just eating one a day and still suffered that?
    - renewiltord 2y ago
      Haha, no, what happened was I ate about a third of a xylitol-based chocolate bar. So far higher dose than what you described, but it's given me a deathly fear of the substance, lest I transform myself into the fastest self-propelled man. Perhaps I'll give it a crack some time.
- russdill 2y ago
  Just to be clear, it's not that it's not good for them, it's highly toxic
  - 2y ago
llsf 2y ago
Okay, so what happens if I (french) kiss a person that is taking this bacteria producing continuously mutacin-1140 and ethanol ? Could it take over my mouth, and I would ended up mutacin tolerant, and accelerating my cirrhosis ?
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  In theory yes, in practice no. Application is unlikely to be succesful without an extremely thorough cleaning of your mouth (think post-dentist). In the absence of dental-visit quality cleaning, the recommendation is to brush your teeth multiple times, using fresh brush heads, which results in an acceptable, but still not 100% success rate. Infants being kissed by their mothers might get it though, as they lack an already existing micro-biome in their mouths against which the new bacteria would need to compete. Additionally, if you were in a relationship with someone and were consistently kissing that person over time, it might eventually establish a foothold. But a single kiss, no matter how wet and sloppy, is almost certainly not enough.
- ted_dunning 2y ago
  Gee... that could plausibly be a risk. Surely that is analyzed in the FDA application file. Oh wait, it's not. Oh wait, there is no file. Oh wait, they didn't do any significant testing at all. To quote Dirty Harry, are you feeling lucky today?
julianeon 2y ago
As soon as I understood "it kills the bacteria in your mouth... by making it a permanently alcoholic environment" I was out.
- zepton 2y ago
  The negligible alcohol production is just a side effect, the alcohol itself does not kill the bacteria.
  - julianeon 2y ago
    Sorry, I didn't know that - I thought it was the mechanism. I appreciate the correction. I don't like having alcohol there 24/7 but I concede that, this being true, it's not the issue I may have thought it was. I would want the FDA to sign off on it being okay, however.
jeffbee 2y ago
Easiest way to determine whether some health fad is dangerous snake oil: search for it on Twitter and determine the overrepresentation of blue checks. Every character at the end of a screen name that comes from a Unicode "symbol" block counts as ten blue checks. The presence of "/dd" counts as 100 blue checks. Simple, effective metric.
- astura 2y ago
  >The presence of "/dd" counts as 100 blue checks. Sorry, I don't understand Twitter lingo and Google doesn't return anything - What does /dd mean?
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    It is associated with Bryan Johnson's book "Don't Die". The author advocates daily electrocution of your penis, among other moronic ideas. He has a bazillion followers among the petty VC crowd.
    - adamsb6 2y ago
      This was so shocking that I went to look it up, and discovered that there's a bit of a telephone game here. It's "shockwave therapy" that isn't eletric. It uses acoustics to cause microscopic damage, and which Johnson rates as a 9/10 on the pain scale, "at the tip."
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        My mistake for assuming there was only one way for a quack to "shock" a body part.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
meew0 2y ago
There is a huge difference in dose between “bacteria in your mouth producing an antibiotic” and “taking an antibiotic for an infection”. Bacteria, even the normal bacteria currently present in your mouth even without taking BCS3L-1, constantly produce antibiotics to kill competing bacteria. But they only produce tiny amounts, enough to affect the competitors in their immediate vicinity, but not nearly enough to cause any kind of systemic effect. If they did, you would already be experiencing these effects right now from all the other antibiotics produced by other bacteria in your mouth. In contrast, antibiotics for medical use are usually given in doses measured in the hundreds of milligrams or even grams, far more than mouth bacteria could ever possibly produce.
refulgentis 2y ago
The Reddit CEO posted a long thread praising it, with distanced language like "How did I get that info? If you ask Lumina, they seemed happy to share" He's an investor!
buildsjets 2y ago
Relating to fluoride's effect on bacterial biofilm - There are several different kinds of fluoride available in toothpaste, and they do not all have the same efficacy against bacterial plaque. Stannous fluoride is considerably more effective than sodium fluoride or sodium monofluorophosphate, but you may need to pay a small amount more for it and actually read the packaging to find it. It's hard to find a website discussing it that is not paid for by a toothpaste company, but here's something. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660268/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660268/
- ivansavz 2y ago
  Very interesting. From that paper, the brand they used as example of stannous fluoride was "oral-B pro expert all-around protection" Do you know of any other brands? I wonder if we can conclude it was the stannous fluoride that made the difference and one of the other ingredients.
  - buildsjets 2y ago
    I use Crest Pro-Health, from the grocery store. It also happens to be what my dentist hands out in their goody bag, but she did not know about the difference between different forms of Fluoride when I brought it up at a check-up. Probably picks the goody bag contents based on who gives the best kickbacks/perks. I'm sure that there are other studies out that that compare the active ingredients in isolation rather than as a part of a commercial preparation, that's just the first one I came across that looked to be from a reasonably independent source, rather than a disguised advertisement.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    It drives me nuts that many toothpastes make big claims about what they do but don't clearly link that to the ingredients they contain. One of very few new ideas was the incorporation of Triclosan into Colgate Total which certainly takes a bite out of biofilms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9220381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9220381/ but who knows if it is good for the rest of you.
  - 2y ago
neilv 2y ago
> I think this is a terrible idea, as well as probably illegal. Unlike most people in the Bay Area, I think formalized safety and efficacy trials are a must for health products. In fact, I told Aaron Silverbook this when he asked me for my advice about his product last fall. No one is going to want to consult you, if you might blog about it, attacking them by name, so... if it was serious enough to burn professional bridges, why not go to the FDA, an Attorney General, a public health authority, an academic-professional society or journal, a Congressperson, or some other channel more official and credible than Substack?
ryangs 2y ago
Interesting read. Does not seem to be working with the same set of facts as the ACX post[1], especially around FDA approval. [1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-bioworks-faq https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-biow....
koeng 2y ago
I got a tube of this probiotic. They asked me not to sequence it, but I'm a little suspicious of putting it in myself, so trust-but-verify (probably Nanoporing). I literally cannot see why sequencing it is a "dick move", so I think I'll be doing it anyway. I do not buy that it is dangerous. However, I haven't seen any statistics showing the frequency of mutacin-1140 or its efficiency. Back in 2015 when I was a teen I did an experiment using colicin V (an E.coli one - I was planning on engineering E.coli Nissile to replace my current gut E.coli with something more fun. Got kicked out of the science fair for that one - https://keonigandall.com/posts/colicins.html https://keonigandall.com/posts/colicins.html ). Turns out, you need a sizable portion of the population to get takeover. I haven't seen ANY data on the population percentage necessary for takeover with this strain. Nor have I seen statistics of its natural occurrence percentage. I wanted to modify the strain to have GFP expression, so I can have my own little engineered biome for myself that is showable at parties and such, but it looks like they removed comE :( will have to start from an original strain instead, I guess.
jrd259 2y ago
I'm disappointed by the somewhat ad-hominem attack on Silverbook for being a porn producer: "Aaron, based on his previous work as guy at a rationalist nonprofit, videogame producer, and porn producer, decided to recreate Hillman’s work." Previous work experience is irrelevant, and besides, don't at least some of aspire to being polymaths?
- everyoneinmusic 2y ago
  Funny joke, but many people consider pornography and its creators to be fundamentally immoral, anti-social and destructive towards civil society in general. So I think it's plenty relevant. Same reason Scott promoting the work of "sex researchers" who promote the same sort of thing is reason for many to be skeptical of his integrity.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > Previous work experience is irrelevant Track record on similar projects was a question on the Manifund application. Those were Silverbook's answers. Were the footnote explaining this and the link to the application added after you read the article?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
seventyone 2y ago
I guess I am going to die from making my own kombucha, kefir, and yogurt because the FDA isn't regulating it. WHAT IF... the mass increase in colon cancers in young people is due to gut bacteria colonies being taken over by a strain of bacteria in mouths that also survives stomach acids? What if that is causing the huge increase in IBS? What if the high carb diets and alternative sugars being consumed at mind boggling rates is a root cause? That the oral bacteria has been overtaken by a strain optimized for these carbs but is actively harmful to our bodies? And what if fixing it is a treatment like this? I'm willing to gamble. Signed, older millenial who has suffered with IBS for years edit: If I could get a fecal transplant procedure in the USA to replace my gut colony I totally would. edit2: fun fact -- did you know Sucralose accumulates in the environment because almost nothing breaks it down? it's pretty close to being a forever chemical. We can tell how much treated sewage injected into the water table is leaking into the ocean by measuring the amount of Sucralose in the ocean waters near the shoreline. That and nitrogen. But glug glug drink up those sugar free sodas and energy drinks!
- green-in-gold 2y ago
  You may know this, but DIY fecal transplants are supposedly very doable
  - seventyone 2y ago
    yeah I recall this article about it https://undark.org/2018/11/08/my-diy-fecal-transplant/ https://undark.org/2018/11/08/my-diy-fecal-transplant/
JohnFen 2y ago
That it's marketed as a "cosmetic" and also includes the word "probiotic" is plenty enough reason for me to steer very clear of this.
infotropy 2y ago
Came here to be “that guy”. Never had a single cavity in over 50years of being alive and have really bad dental care habits. I brush once a day for about 30 seconds, don’t really floss and have gone up to 6 years between cleanings. I don’t eat a lot of processed foods or foods high in sugar, but I don’t completely abstain from them either. Nothing to do with Lumina directly, but I’ve always been curious about my dental microbiome and how something about it is different from others. I often worry about new products like Lumina upsetting whatever balance I’ve got going on.
- beaugunderson 2y ago
  my guess is that you don't graze enough to put your Stephan curve negative for long periods of time... https://jamiethedentist.com/dental-caries-decay/stephan-curve/ https://jamiethedentist.com/dental-caries-decay/stephan-curv...
dur-randir 2y ago
I've never heard about this product, but the tone & narrative of this article made me highly wonder about author's intentions.
indigo0086 2y ago
>Pictured: Jeffrey Hillman’s origin story. Any resemblance to Tim Burton’s 2005 remake of Willy Wonka is purely coincidental. Ignore the Warner Bros. copyright in the corner. Blogger trying to convince us he's presenting a good faith article challenge: impossible
Beijinger 2y ago
Use Xylitol and Erythritol together: https://expatcircle.com/cms/how-to-clean-your-teeth-and-save-money https://expatcircle.com/cms/how-to-clean-your-teeth-and-save...

201 points by gdudeman 2y ago

> Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea What about off-label medication? I don't think taking Lumina is smart, more or less for the reasons the author ennumerates. I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category!

axblount 2y ago
Off-label drugs are still approved by the FDA for their original purpose.
cool_dude85 2y ago
>I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. The author has provided some solid arguments that this is not the case. Why do you think so?
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I actually don't think the author provided very good arguments. It was my only real beef with the article: "this might do bad things" gets rounded off to "this is dangerous", even though his sources don't say the bad things will happen. They simply might happen.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    Nobody can predict the future. Bad things only ever "can" happen until they do - they never "will" happen. The author explains why and how those things are possible.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The Precautionary Principle is problematic applied to public policy generally, but it's the accepted practice in medicine. You can argue it shouldn't be, but you shouldn't pretend you'd be in the mainstream with that argument.
Aurornis 2y ago
> What about off-label medication? Off-label means prescribed for a different purpose than originally indicated, at the prescriber's discretion. The medication must still have past safety testing and have shown efficacy for something. > I also think it's unlikely enough to hurt people that FDA approval shouldn't be required. There's a lot of stuff in that category! You can sell a lot of products as-is without FDA approval. However, making substantial claims about that product's medicinal properties is regulated in a different manner. These people are trying to have the best of both worlds: Making extraordinary claims about preventing a medical condition, while also avoiding any participation in the FDA process or even funding standard trials. I think the most obvious counter argument is that this could easily be a massively successful drug if it works as well as they claim. The TAM is everyone with teeth who wants to keep them, which is basically everyone. Yet instead they've chosen this weird path of embracing the rationalist community and supplement nuts, which is a much smaller market.
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
Yeah, God forbid anyone take ginger or mint for an upset stomach, chamomile tea to relax, or melatonin to help them fall asleep. Or, more on topic, a toothpaste with FDA approved fluoride and FDA approved biomin which, when combined, lacks FDA approval. I never make any decisions that have not been approved officially by the US government

Aurornis 2y ago

> I’ve also been disappointed for some months to see how many people I respect (and some I don’t respect) have been using it/promoting it. Taking unapproved drugs is a bad idea, no matter what rationalist bloggers with MDs, porn star/escort/sex researchers, Twitter guys, or conservative firebrands who get sick immediately after taking the unapproved drug tell you. The "rationalist community" has always been quirky and edgy, but iterations in recent years have felt increasingly reactionary and contrarian at all costs. Being anti-FDA has been a meme in the rationalist community for several years, especially since Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex / Astral Codex Ten) started writing anti-FDA pieces. (Side note: The conservative firebrand they're talking about is a person who was caught using a pseudonym to post extremely biased, racist material, who has somehow remained prominent in the community despite the revelations). This appears to have primed the community for "FDA bad" takes, which has triggered their contrarian tendencies to assume that anything that goes against the FDA must therefore be good. A supplement maker publicly defying the FDA and pushing out a miracle treatment without the normal rigor of human trials and safety reviews is the type of behavior that would have triggered skepticism from the rationalist community. Yet because the community has been primed with "FDA bad, anti-FDA good" memes for years and the person pitching this supplement is vaguely connected to the rationalist community, this product has triggered a lot of adoration and praise from the community. The product also exists in a space that is difficult to disprove: The effects of any anti-cavity product can only really be shown over very long periods of time in controlled settings. Anyone who gets a cavity while using this product will surely be dismissed as having a pre-existing cavity growing, or poor oral hygiene, or being a statistical anomaly, or any other number of excuses. At the same time, I'm sure we're about to hear endless anecdotes from people who have been taking the supplement and haven't had any cavities (while ignoring the fact that most people also don't get cavities in a given year, even without this magic probiotic). It feels like the perfect storm for a grift, and this company is taking the lead and running with it. It's weird that a blog post advising some caution and skepticism for a supplement pusher making extraordinary claims who has refused to participate in the normally expected clinical trials. It's equally weird to see the self-described rationalist community throwing scientific rigor to the wind and embracing marketer's claims. I don't entirely understand what's going on here, but I think it's strange that an article advising a modicum of skepticism for supplement pushers is now considered a contrarian take in the rationalist community.

maxbond 2y ago

Whenever this topic comes up on HN it strikes me as bizarre that anyone thinks they can genetically modify a bacteria, release it into the wild - and that it'll stay genetically modified? Like the author mentions, bacteria are constantly swapping genes via horizontal gene transfer. Surely the bacteria in our mouths have found the optimal metabolism for their environment? Why wouldn't we expect our genetically modified bacteria to adopt the same strategy? I imagine that you could, at least on paper, create a Rube Goldberg machine in their genes that, say, killed them if they produced lactic acid, and made it very difficult to delete these genes without destroying their ability to reproduce. But you'll probably also handicap them in the process and make it difficult for them to adapt to competitive adaptations from other bacteria.

ravenstine 2y ago
It's as if most of us don't have a background in biology or genetics.
- maxbond 2y ago
  Fair enough but I do feel like our everyday experience with biology informs this. If you cultivate a certain color of rose and release it into the wild, you wouldn't expect that color to persist, right? Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel like that's intuitive. Maybe the technology is sexy and dazzling and that makes it more difficult to engage critically.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Depends on the plant. I've got two GMO plants in my house right now; glow-in-the-dark petunias (https://light.bio/ https://light.bio/) and purple tomatoes (https://www.norfolkhealthyproduce.com/ https://www.norfolkhealthyproduce.com/). The tomatoes breed true (i.e. the seeds have the gene); the petunias do not and must be cloned via propagation. Roses, fruit trees, etc. are the latter.
    - SamBam 2y ago

deelowe 2y ago

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation for why this particular regimen is dangerous. Instead this is a rather lengthy essay which ultimately relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. Not to say I think people should just put random things into their bodies - It is indeed probably not the best idea. That said, I'm not sure I learned anything new after reading this.

atuladhar 2y ago
What a strange take! Not an expert (or even a beginner) in this area by any means, but I definitely learned a lot, and I thought the author pretty clearly laid out why they think this probiotic may not be good for your body. Did we read the same blog post?
- nrdgrrrl 2y ago
  [dead]
eynsham 2y ago
How does the section titled ‘Category 2: the known health risks of BCS3L-1’ problematically appeal to authority? It seems to about as much as appealing to known results that swallowing vast quantities of lead is a bad idea would. (The other sections certainly appeal to authority, although not obviously fallaciously to me, but that would be to go over quite tired ground about medical regulation.)
samrmay 2y ago
The article does specifically mention that the strain used produces an antibody which survives in the gut and may demolish your gut microbiome. Also one of the footnotes mentions that producing alcohol instead of lactic acid as a byproduct may not be as harmless at it seems. I'm also not sure that taking issue with a company bypassing systemic protections against dangerous drugs is an appeal to authority.
1939416836 2y ago
The article lists several reasons why the regimen is dangerous: if you get the bacteria that you're supposed to be getting, that bacteria will be continuously producing an antibiotic. Having bacteria constantly dosing you with antibiotics can lead to all the sorts of issues that long-term antibiotics present. Secondly, the article claims, probiotic manufacturing is very susceptible to contamination. Luckily, there are steps a manufacturer can take to avoid contamination, but it doesn't appear that this manufacturer is taking these steps. All of this is stated in the article, if you missed this on your first read, you might consider re-reading it :)

canucker2016 2y ago

One could try gum with xylitol instead, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol from https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archives/ly-28-2.pdf https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archive... "In addition, xylitol has a number of other effects on S mutans that may account for some of its clinical effects in caries reduction. Short-term consumption of xylitol is associated with decreased S mutans levels in both saliva and plaque.15 Long-term habitual consumption of xylitol appears to have a selective effect on S mutans strains. This results in selection for populations that are less virulent and less capable of adhering to tooth surfaces and, thus, are shed more easily from plaque into saliva."

SkyMarshal 2y ago

A simpler alternative is xylitol. Not a drug, no FDA approval required. It's a plant-based sweetener that cavity-causing mouth bacteria love to ingest, but which provides no sustenance to them. It essentially fills them up and then causes them to starve them to death, helping maintain minimum mouth bacteria. No bacteria, no cavities. Get it in mints or gum like Zellies or PUR (the only two I've found that don't include Titanium Dioxide). Take one a day after brushing in the evening so it kills bacteria overnight. https://zellies.com/ https://zellies.com/ https://thepurcompany.com/ https://thepurcompany.com/ https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/xylitol-101 (Also if you have pets, make sure they don't get any, xylitol isn't good for them, especially dogs)

renewiltord 2y ago
Gives some of us rocket powered shits though. I’ve been known to hit escape velocity at the border mall in Basel. Well contained within the inverted engine bell and served well by powerful flush mechanism.
- SkyMarshal 2y ago
  Lol, true it can. Were you just eating one a day and still suffered that?
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    Haha, no, what happened was I ate about a third of a xylitol-based chocolate bar. So far higher dose than what you described, but it's given me a deathly fear of the substance, lest I transform myself into the fastest self-propelled man. Perhaps I'll give it a crack some time.
russdill 2y ago
Just to be clear, it's not that it's not good for them, it's highly toxic
- 2y ago

llsf 2y ago

Okay, so what happens if I (french) kiss a person that is taking this bacteria producing continuously mutacin-1140 and ethanol ? Could it take over my mouth, and I would ended up mutacin tolerant, and accelerating my cirrhosis ?

MostlyStable 2y ago
In theory yes, in practice no. Application is unlikely to be succesful without an extremely thorough cleaning of your mouth (think post-dentist). In the absence of dental-visit quality cleaning, the recommendation is to brush your teeth multiple times, using fresh brush heads, which results in an acceptable, but still not 100% success rate. Infants being kissed by their mothers might get it though, as they lack an already existing micro-biome in their mouths against which the new bacteria would need to compete. Additionally, if you were in a relationship with someone and were consistently kissing that person over time, it might eventually establish a foothold. But a single kiss, no matter how wet and sloppy, is almost certainly not enough.
ted_dunning 2y ago
Gee... that could plausibly be a risk. Surely that is analyzed in the FDA application file. Oh wait, it's not. Oh wait, there is no file. Oh wait, they didn't do any significant testing at all. To quote Dirty Harry, are you feeling lucky today?

julianeon 2y ago

As soon as I understood "it kills the bacteria in your mouth... by making it a permanently alcoholic environment" I was out.

zepton 2y ago
The negligible alcohol production is just a side effect, the alcohol itself does not kill the bacteria.
- julianeon 2y ago
  Sorry, I didn't know that - I thought it was the mechanism. I appreciate the correction. I don't like having alcohol there 24/7 but I concede that, this being true, it's not the issue I may have thought it was. I would want the FDA to sign off on it being okay, however.

jeffbee 2y ago

Easiest way to determine whether some health fad is dangerous snake oil: search for it on Twitter and determine the overrepresentation of blue checks. Every character at the end of a screen name that comes from a Unicode "symbol" block counts as ten blue checks. The presence of "/dd" counts as 100 blue checks. Simple, effective metric.

astura 2y ago
>The presence of "/dd" counts as 100 blue checks. Sorry, I don't understand Twitter lingo and Google doesn't return anything - What does /dd mean?
- jeffbee 2y ago
  It is associated with Bryan Johnson's book "Don't Die". The author advocates daily electrocution of your penis, among other moronic ideas. He has a bazillion followers among the petty VC crowd.
  - adamsb6 2y ago
    This was so shocking that I went to look it up, and discovered that there's a bit of a telephone game here. It's "shockwave therapy" that isn't eletric. It uses acoustics to cause microscopic damage, and which Johnson rates as a 9/10 on the pain scale, "at the tip."
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      My mistake for assuming there was only one way for a quack to "shock" a body part.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

meew0 2y ago

There is a huge difference in dose between “bacteria in your mouth producing an antibiotic” and “taking an antibiotic for an infection”. Bacteria, even the normal bacteria currently present in your mouth even without taking BCS3L-1, constantly produce antibiotics to kill competing bacteria. But they only produce tiny amounts, enough to affect the competitors in their immediate vicinity, but not nearly enough to cause any kind of systemic effect. If they did, you would already be experiencing these effects right now from all the other antibiotics produced by other bacteria in your mouth. In contrast, antibiotics for medical use are usually given in doses measured in the hundreds of milligrams or even grams, far more than mouth bacteria could ever possibly produce.

refulgentis 2y ago

The Reddit CEO posted a long thread praising it, with distanced language like "How did I get that info? If you ask Lumina, they seemed happy to share" He's an investor!

buildsjets 2y ago

Relating to fluoride's effect on bacterial biofilm - There are several different kinds of fluoride available in toothpaste, and they do not all have the same efficacy against bacterial plaque. Stannous fluoride is considerably more effective than sodium fluoride or sodium monofluorophosphate, but you may need to pay a small amount more for it and actually read the packaging to find it. It's hard to find a website discussing it that is not paid for by a toothpaste company, but here's something. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660268/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660268/

ivansavz 2y ago
Very interesting. From that paper, the brand they used as example of stannous fluoride was "oral-B pro expert all-around protection" Do you know of any other brands? I wonder if we can conclude it was the stannous fluoride that made the difference and one of the other ingredients.
- buildsjets 2y ago
  I use Crest Pro-Health, from the grocery store. It also happens to be what my dentist hands out in their goody bag, but she did not know about the difference between different forms of Fluoride when I brought it up at a check-up. Probably picks the goody bag contents based on who gives the best kickbacks/perks. I'm sure that there are other studies out that that compare the active ingredients in isolation rather than as a part of a commercial preparation, that's just the first one I came across that looked to be from a reasonably independent source, rather than a disguised advertisement.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  It drives me nuts that many toothpastes make big claims about what they do but don't clearly link that to the ingredients they contain. One of very few new ideas was the incorporation of Triclosan into Colgate Total which certainly takes a bite out of biofilms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9220381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9220381/ but who knows if it is good for the rest of you.
- 2y ago

neilv 2y ago

> I think this is a terrible idea, as well as probably illegal. Unlike most people in the Bay Area, I think formalized safety and efficacy trials are a must for health products. In fact, I told Aaron Silverbook this when he asked me for my advice about his product last fall. No one is going to want to consult you, if you might blog about it, attacking them by name, so... if it was serious enough to burn professional bridges, why not go to the FDA, an Attorney General, a public health authority, an academic-professional society or journal, a Congressperson, or some other channel more official and credible than Substack?

ryangs 2y ago

Interesting read. Does not seem to be working with the same set of facts as the ACX post[1], especially around FDA approval. [1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-bioworks-faq https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-biow....

koeng 2y ago

I got a tube of this probiotic. They asked me not to sequence it, but I'm a little suspicious of putting it in myself, so trust-but-verify (probably Nanoporing). I literally cannot see why sequencing it is a "dick move", so I think I'll be doing it anyway. I do not buy that it is dangerous. However, I haven't seen any statistics showing the frequency of mutacin-1140 or its efficiency. Back in 2015 when I was a teen I did an experiment using colicin V (an E.coli one - I was planning on engineering E.coli Nissile to replace my current gut E.coli with something more fun. Got kicked out of the science fair for that one - https://keonigandall.com/posts/colicins.html https://keonigandall.com/posts/colicins.html ). Turns out, you need a sizable portion of the population to get takeover. I haven't seen ANY data on the population percentage necessary for takeover with this strain. Nor have I seen statistics of its natural occurrence percentage. I wanted to modify the strain to have GFP expression, so I can have my own little engineered biome for myself that is showable at parties and such, but it looks like they removed comE :( will have to start from an original strain instead, I guess.

jrd259 2y ago

I'm disappointed by the somewhat ad-hominem attack on Silverbook for being a porn producer: "Aaron, based on his previous work as guy at a rationalist nonprofit, videogame producer, and porn producer, decided to recreate Hillman’s work." Previous work experience is irrelevant, and besides, don't at least some of aspire to being polymaths?

everyoneinmusic 2y ago
Funny joke, but many people consider pornography and its creators to be fundamentally immoral, anti-social and destructive towards civil society in general. So I think it's plenty relevant. Same reason Scott promoting the work of "sex researchers" who promote the same sort of thing is reason for many to be skeptical of his integrity.
pseudalopex 2y ago
> Previous work experience is irrelevant Track record on similar projects was a question on the Manifund application. Those were Silverbook's answers. Were the footnote explaining this and the link to the application added after you read the article?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

seventyone 2y ago

I guess I am going to die from making my own kombucha, kefir, and yogurt because the FDA isn't regulating it. WHAT IF... the mass increase in colon cancers in young people is due to gut bacteria colonies being taken over by a strain of bacteria in mouths that also survives stomach acids? What if that is causing the huge increase in IBS? What if the high carb diets and alternative sugars being consumed at mind boggling rates is a root cause? That the oral bacteria has been overtaken by a strain optimized for these carbs but is actively harmful to our bodies? And what if fixing it is a treatment like this? I'm willing to gamble. Signed, older millenial who has suffered with IBS for years edit: If I could get a fecal transplant procedure in the USA to replace my gut colony I totally would. edit2: fun fact -- did you know Sucralose accumulates in the environment because almost nothing breaks it down? it's pretty close to being a forever chemical. We can tell how much treated sewage injected into the water table is leaking into the ocean by measuring the amount of Sucralose in the ocean waters near the shoreline. That and nitrogen. But glug glug drink up those sugar free sodas and energy drinks!

green-in-gold 2y ago
You may know this, but DIY fecal transplants are supposedly very doable
- seventyone 2y ago
  yeah I recall this article about it https://undark.org/2018/11/08/my-diy-fecal-transplant/ https://undark.org/2018/11/08/my-diy-fecal-transplant/

JohnFen 2y ago

That it's marketed as a "cosmetic" and also includes the word "probiotic" is plenty enough reason for me to steer very clear of this.

infotropy 2y ago

Came here to be “that guy”. Never had a single cavity in over 50years of being alive and have really bad dental care habits. I brush once a day for about 30 seconds, don’t really floss and have gone up to 6 years between cleanings. I don’t eat a lot of processed foods or foods high in sugar, but I don’t completely abstain from them either. Nothing to do with Lumina directly, but I’ve always been curious about my dental microbiome and how something about it is different from others. I often worry about new products like Lumina upsetting whatever balance I’ve got going on.

beaugunderson 2y ago
my guess is that you don't graze enough to put your Stephan curve negative for long periods of time... https://jamiethedentist.com/dental-caries-decay/stephan-curve/ https://jamiethedentist.com/dental-caries-decay/stephan-curv...

dur-randir 2y ago

I've never heard about this product, but the tone & narrative of this article made me highly wonder about author's intentions.

indigo0086 2y ago

>Pictured: Jeffrey Hillman’s origin story. Any resemblance to Tim Burton’s 2005 remake of Willy Wonka is purely coincidental. Ignore the Warner Bros. copyright in the corner. Blogger trying to convince us he's presenting a good faith article challenge: impossible

Beijinger 2y ago

Use Xylitol and Erythritol together: https://expatcircle.com/cms/how-to-clean-your-teeth-and-save-money https://expatcircle.com/cms/how-to-clean-your-teeth-and-save...