5 ms·
Why do you think the company never took it to market past testing? And thank you for looking into this. I recall reading about experiments on the modified bact
by rudyfink 3y ago
Why do you think the company never took it to market past testing?
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.
- hrkfmud50k 3y ago> After a single application, this strain persists in the mouth indefinitely, hedging out cavity-causing bacteria > 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
- DropInIn 3y agoSo once again we doom the species to eternal torment for the sake of one company's profits.... This shit should just be taken by the state for the benefit of everyone, because really it's insane not to.
- Llamamoe 3y agoWelcome to virtually all of healthcare.
- cellularmitosis 3y agoWhy doesn't the state just purchase the IP from them?
- diffeomorphism 3y agoWhat is the difference? When something is "taken" they still get ample compensation.
- DropInIn 3y agoWhat is the IP doing now? If it's abandoned what value does it actually have in the marketplace? Theres no real reason to reward squatting on world changing tech, is there?
- jaggederest 3y agoWhy purchase the IP at all? The proposed funding is for parallel reconstruction - we know it's possible, we have enough details to recreate it, it's a "simple matter of funding" at that point.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoUnfortunately, states these days rarely do anything on their own. So even if they bought or took the IP, they'd still have to lend it to some private manufacturer, who will quickly ensure the government itself ends up locked into a subscription. Either way, some private company gets fat, and society gets shafted: you'll be paying a subscription for this, whether directly to a vendor, or hidden as part of your taxes. 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.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoWhile there is some work and capital that goes in to developing the IP, it also builds up on decades of fundamental research that is funded by the public (standing on the shoulders of giants and all that). Therefore, I'd say that a big discount should be had for such a purchase.
- ImHereToVote 3y agoThe employers of politicians would never pay them to do it.
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoYeah, THAT will incentivize people to come up with more stuff like this!
- ajuc 3y agoIf free market can't get this done, maybe we should just pay people from our taxes to do such research?
- DropInIn 3y agoThe IP is effectively valueless if there is no intent to monetize it. Really....
- Clent 3y agoIt would incentivize them to use or lose it. 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.
- fsckboy 3y ago"I wonder if the one-time sale can be "resold" through snogging?" - Phil MacAvity
- totetsu 3y agoProbiotic kissing booth?
- TeMPOraL 3y agoWell, why not? Compared to fecal matter transplants, which are already a thing, tickets to a kissing booth will sell out like hot cakes. (Can I pay for a monthly pass up front? It's for medical purposes!)
- klyrs 3y ago> Well, why not? Herpes. And other viruses, probably, but one incurable STI (KTI?) is all the reason I need to say hell no.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoBut in terms of competing with fecal matter transplants - are there no diseases that could be transmitted between... the backends?
- klyrs 3y agoCrucially, the recipient cannot infect the donor in, let's say, the accepted method of fecal transplantation.
- Fomite 3y agoFMT was the topic of my dissertation. Donor stool is heavily screened, and there's pushes both to use the patient's own stool where possible, or creating synthetic stool that is pathogen free.
- autoexec 3y agoHere's hoping that someday someone who cares more about promoting health than padding wallets will take this idea and use it to bring the masses something they can apply once at a low price.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- refurb 3y agoThere are plenty of one time therapies in healthcare. Hell, cancer therapies are one course of therapy. Plenty of ways to make a profit. My bet is that it was never tested and the claim is entirely a prediction.
- 0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago"Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’" https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie...
- ASalazarMX 3y agoIt's a legitimate question. The article is about gene theraphy, and its potential to cure chronic genetic diseases. 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.
- pmarreck 3y agoThis attitude is so stupid. You could: 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
- akrolsmir 3y agoI don't have any special insight into what happened at Oragenics (my full context on this application includes what's listed at the link, plus a short call with Aaron about his fundraising plans). There's a little more color on the Wikipedia page for the cavity vaccine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine 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"
- jaggederest 3y agoI've looked at it pretty extensively over the years and the explanation is pretty obvious: the cost to run the trials would have been ruinous for the return. Look at the clinical requirements for the stage 1 and 2 trials - IRB specified only people without teeth and some other requirement which was prohibitive, like a clean room, or only terminal patients, or something. 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.
- jansan 3y agoHello billionaires, how about becoming known by future generation as "the person who eradicated cavities"?
- jaggederest 3y agoYeah that would probably get your name on a lot of high schools, if that's your thing. 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.
- justinclift 3y ago
- ralfd 3y agoThese comments from 2018 say FDA approval was to complicated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17095954 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.