Happy to answer any questions!
And thank you for looking into this. I recall reading about experiments on the modified bacteria years ago, but then I forgot about it. Until I read your page, I had not realized it died on the vine.
> but the developing company declined to go to market, and instead pivoted to selling once-daily probiotic mouthwash.
sounds like they preferred to sell a recurring subscription vs a one-time sale
(Can I pay for a monthly pass up front? It's for medical purposes!)
Herpes.
And other viruses, probably, but one incurable STI (KTI?) is all the reason I need to say hell no.
This shit should just be taken by the state for the benefit of everyone, because really it's insane not to.
Theres no real reason to reward squatting on world changing tech, is there?
Like usual, the problem isn't whose name is on the box. The problem is the subscription-based business model, which can easily turn into pure rent seeking.
Really....
The government is protecting their discovery via patent law, why is it not allowed to remove this protection.
Patents and copyright are very recent inventions. Not everyone is motivated by profit. People were inventing things before capitalism consumed the world.
Plenty of ways to make a profit.
My bet is that it was never tested and the claim is entirely a prediction.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie...
If you create a startup that after a decade creates an affordable and effective gene theraphy for type II diabetes, and most of people recover, will your startup survive curing only new cases of it? Will it be able to tackle another disease before your coffers dry up?
The question can be viewed as greedy companies wanting to milk diseases forever, or as a sustainability issue. Being able to cure chronic diseases affordably will probably become a new socioeconomic challenge.
1) milk a dumb problem you've already solved, making very moderate profit, or
2) solve it and move onto more interesting problems, continuing to make money
A few HN commenters seem to think that there's a nefarious explanation where a cavity wonder treatment would be unprofitable to develop; I think that's possible, but also it could just be that the company dropped the ball. Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
It's clear they couldn't raise $10b to fund trials on a timely basis for something that was far from a sure thing - it worked in a couple cases, but imagine if it caused increased heart disease or "no clinical benefit" and you'd poured billions into it.
On the other hand, it wouldn't eliminate oral hygiene, for both the obvious olfactory and comfort reasons, as well as gingivitis and other non-caries oral health issues.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1174940/000156459019...
Relevant portion excerpted:
> Replacement Therapy
>
> Our SMaRT Replacement Therapy is based on the creation of a genetically modified strain of bacteria that colonizes in the oral cavity and replaces native bacteria that cause tooth decay. Our SMaRT Replacement Therapy product candidate is designed to be a painless, one-time, five-minute topical treatment applied to the teeth that has the potential to offer lifelong protection against dental caries, or tooth decay. While we commenced a Phase 1b clinical trial for SMaRT Replacement Therapy during the first quarter of 2011, the very restrictive trial enrollment criteria required by the FDA made the enrollment of candidates meeting the restrictive criteria difficult. This enrollment difficulty was also present in our Phase 1a clinical trial. Due to the enrollment difficulties we encountered with our initial Phase 1a clinical trial and with our Phase 1b clinical trial, we determined to discontinue pursuit of our Phase 1b clinical trial. Our focus for the SMaRT Replacement Therapy technology is on possible partnering opportunities that may exist.
Don't forget about Hanlon's handgun: don't attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17095954
> The product was being developed by Oragenics, but was shelved in 2014, citing regulatory concerns and patent issues.