Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pyxl101 | Hacker News Reader

http://www.bioimplant.at/faq-2/

> Are there any long-term follow up publications?

> We have attempted to publish papers in leading journals, but have repeatedly encountered resistance to this innovative idea from “The Establishment”. Dental industry perferes to sell simple titanium screw type variations at the price of 200 Euros (a middel class cellphone!) and industry recruited experts simply prefere to make money with risky and costly operations and love to teach confusing drill sequences and fill guide lines.

Why not make the paper available anyway, like on arxiv.org?

View on HN

Might as well have bright red flashing letters at the top of the page saying "WE ARE QUACKS." It's possible this product is great, but my immediate reaction to any medical product that positions itself as the underdog fighting against the evil establishment is to run far, far away.

Sadly, as much as I would like the content all to be true, 'Quack' is my assessment too. They say they have been selling this in Austria for 11 years but want crowdfunding to take it abroad. Somehow that does not add up.

And in my experience dentists are really pretty open to innovation, especially 3d scanning and machining. Most recently I got a grinding guard and instead of taking an impression my dentist actually used a Danish scanner that pieced together a couple of hundred individual photos.

Not every great inventor is also a great businessman.

Actually, this is rather rare.

History is full of examples of superior tech/ideas struggling or even failing because of this.

Allow yourself to assume this is one of these cases before dismissing it based on the reverse assumption.

Also consider that Austria != the valley.

Immediate reaction from me too, the "dentists won't adopt it cause it makes them lose money" rings exactly like the story of the air powered car and similar.

In particular, if they're so confident about the absurdity of the critiques, they should publish those as well. Maybe dentists have some real concern that these inventors are dismissing out of hand - the best way to dispel that, if false, is to make it public.

Other content in this article makes me a bit nervous.

For example, it strongly implies at several points that the dental association has a conspiracy to keep patients using less safe technology because it leads to recurring surgeries:

> No one can argue against this logical access to immediate implantology.

> Surgeons like simple titanium screws because they mean more surgery. More surgery means more money.

I asked about this five months ago, and was told my theory was "asinine," and that here was no conspiracy.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13361392#13362425

I'd be curious to hear lancewiggs's views on this tech.

I've seen the actual rejection letters from prominent dental implant journals stating that this treatment is not of interest to their readership, and to seek publication elsewhere.

Perhaps it's not a coordinated conspiracy, but this really is a 'WTF?' situation.

Previous papers are readily downloadable on the website. It's just the latest papers (with the longest-term follow-ups) that Dr Pirker is holding out for, hoping to get them published in one of the top journals.

But yes, bioRxiv would be a good idea!

To answer some of the naysayers: this is definitely not a quack treatment. The CEO is unconventional, to be sure, but the patient always comes first.

Just to address any lingering doubt: I'm a recipient of this implant, so yes: first hand experience, dogfooding, etc.

Two days ago SENS foundation head told a similar story. The publication system is biased toward low hanging fruit and nothing hard and innovative gets promoted. Didn't have time to ask for more information about the subject sadly. But your comment makes me more than curious now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com