Comment by zenexer

Comment by zenexer 2 days ago

9 replies

Because the participants could very easily spread it to other people. This wouldn’t just affect them. That’s why the trial was ultimately required to take place under quarantine.

It’s not even a question of whether it would spread, but whether it might spread. There’s a reasonable chance that this bacterium would, in fact, spread, and nobody has proven otherwise.

The FDA is doing its job here: it’s protecting the masses from people who believe they’re just consenting for themselves.

mapt 2 days ago

The FDA, however, is not regulating the spread of the 800 other known species of oral bacteria as well as presumably numerous unknown ones, which do cause some known harm. The extreme suspicion of commercially introduced anthropogenic agents seems a bit ridiculous in both natural ecology and the human microbiome. Prove this compound conclusively safe, but not these other ten million compounds we're just going to allow to run wild. Or for competitors - rely on the 'proof' of safety established in the 1920's or the 1970's before we had any idea whatsoever what we were doing scientifically. Or just rely on doctors/dentists unsupported first-principles advice - we've never demonstrated scientifically that floss works, for example.

We should all be quarantined, all the time, by this criteria. Regulatory bodies have a great cognitive bias towards fictional 'purity' of systems that are in actual scientific fact, messy and routinely contaminated in various ways.

  • bondarchuk 2 days ago

    Breathing an 80/20 nitrogen/oxygen mixture is also not regulated, yet breathing mustard gas is. So biased.

    • Supermancho a day ago

      For testing, we do what we can within practical limits. What those limits should be, is where contention lies. The FDA will come around, especially if someone else does trials under less strict conditions. Won't happen today.

  • gamblor956 2 days ago

    All of those other oral probiotics are based on published research about naturally occurring bacterial strains already present in the environment, and in some cases have the evidentiary support of human trials.

    Lumina is a genetically modified bacteria. It has no research supporting its effectiveness because the original inventors never bothered to conduct a human trial; they just said that it probably works based on testing in a petri dish. (Note: lots of drugs work in petri dishes and laboratory animals. Very few go on to have success in humans.)

    Notably, the founder of the current company selling it has does not have a background in dentistry or microbiology and does not understand how his company's product actually works.

    • cubefox 2 days ago

      > research supporting its effectiveness because the original inventors never bothered to conduct a human trial; they just

      If you had read the article you would know that they did bother but the regulatory body set requirements for such a study so high that they couldn't perform it.

MagicMoonlight 18 hours ago

They didn’t care when they were spraying down entire cities with bacteria to test the spread of biological weapons.

[removed] 2 days ago
[deleted]
bcoates 2 days ago

Does the FDA have any actual mandate or expertise to do that, or are they just embracing mission creep?

  • connicpu 2 days ago

    I think their right to regulate this is similar to their right to tell labs working with smallpox that they have to run a tight ship to prevent leaks.