Comment by Grimblewald
Comment by Grimblewald 2 days ago
Read the article. If you have not already, you might rethink consideration of this product.
Comment by Grimblewald 2 days ago
Read the article. If you have not already, you might rethink consideration of this product.
or, you could be infecting your mouth with a stubborn bacteria that will be difficult if not impossible to eradicate, that has the capacity to laterally acquire pathogenic genes, or through the toxin it produces, suppress other microbes which are actively beneficial. For the low cost of $500, you could end up with a lifetime of medical issues.
My own dentist (William Drillfill, DDS) was telling me just a few weeks ago that it could be alot worse. The mid-sized boat building industry sector could take a big hit and tank the entire economy. Have some sympathy for the boat builders, how many more layoffs can our country take right now?
How is that your takeaway?
Either you didn’t read the article, or you’re blatantly ignoring that we don’t understand the long term implications of having this bacteria in your mouth and gut microbiome.
There may be no problems at all… but we don’t know. This is why FDA regulations exist. The product being sold in Prospera to skirt regulations should be a red flag anyway.
I’m not saying that it can’t or won’t work. I’m saying, be careful. If you can prevent cavities by brushing with fluoridated toothpaste and flossing, why would you adopt a potential risk that could affect your health?
Sometimes you read an article and you think "this article doesn't want me to do X, but all its arguments against X are utterly terrible. If that's the best they could find, X is probably alright."
their argument is well reasoned and significant. The very real potential of the bacteria to acquire genes that make it pathogenic, coupled with how hard it would be to eradicate, should make all but the most desperate think twice. The final nail in the coffin, should be the fact that this is not even likely to work the way it is intended to.
I googled and got multiple results that I couldn't tie with your comment. what do you reference with Prospers?
As referenced in the article, Próspera [0]. It’s a private city/private economic zone in Honduras. The NYT actually just released a great Sunday Read podcast on the city this weekend [1].
[0] https://www.prospera.co/en/visit
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/podcasts/the-daily/prospe...
The article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/magazine/prospera-hondura...
Archive: https://archive.is/fwjcD
The article provides some reasons to think that the treatment might not be fully effective even conditional on the mechanism of action working as described, not that it won't do anything at all.
The article provides some sound reasons for why
1. infecting yourself with this bacteria may not do what it is marketed to do
2. may result in suppression of beneficial microbiota
3. is not safe against lateral acquisition of a gene that is beneficial to the microbe but pathogenic to the human host
4. there is no real kill switch
for a lot of money, you might just end up buying a lot of health issues.
I don’t think that’s the case at all - it’s a common concern in endurance sports, you really do have huge quantities of sugar.
Th article just confirms my suspicion that the worst thing is I could be out $500