Comment by cubefox
Comment by cubefox 2 days ago
> We are thus left with a product, Lumina, that cannot guarantee the prevention of future caries
"Guarantees" are not strictly needed. What matters most is whether there is a substantial reduction of future caries, not whether it makes you totally immune to it.
Say, if Lumina/BCS3-L1 "only" reduces cavities by 50%, it is already half as good (arguably) as a drug which prevented 100%. This would already be large progress for such a massive global problem. The article author does not seem to recognize the potential of such a drug.
I feel like this is a trend in online writing lately, and it's leading me to more and more withdraw from online discourse. Whenever someone introduces something that greatly helps with something, there are a bunch of people who start pointing out that, while the new solution is waay better than anything before it, it's not 100% perfect, and therefore "it's benefits are exaggerated" or similar. If the new thing is in the public eye for long enough, those "exaggerated" complaints start morphing into "it's a scam", and shortly after that the new solution to yesterday's problem is the villain that must be stopped.
It's really confusing, and quite tiring.