I certainly agree that I’d hold off until I knew the answers to a bunch more questions.
This all seems to rest on the relative increase in oral and esophygeal cancer. 10x sounds like an awful lot. But in terms of decision-making, the absolute increase, not the ratio, is the bottom line. So: what are the absolute likelihoods? If they’re both miniscule, this might not be a deciding factor. Increasing my cancer risk by one in a million might be a good trade for immunity to cavities and gum disease.
If you throw in immunity to bad breath, I’d take that deal. I wonder how large a factor the alcohol vs lactic acid is in bad breath.
I think it’s also worth considering how much ethanol is excreted into the mouth by these bacteria relative to how much in the mouth of a heavy drinker. I’m sure the frequency vs. persistance is also a factor, but I’m not sure how.
On the other hand, if those numbers are much higher, it’s possible that even those without ALDH deficiency shouldn’t take the treatment.
Even if it reduces it a bit, there’s no good reason to assume that it causes immunity.
Lumina is about replacing Streptococcus mutans while leaving Lactobacillus alone. Streptococcus mutans lives on dental tissue while Lactobacillus lives on the gum. Both produce lactic acid.
I’m not certain this is a big problem, but it can be. My guess is 60% that this causes a significant increase in oral cancers for ALDH deficiency heterozygotes.
If you add up the upper digestive tract cancers, it looks like 2.7% developing and 0.8% dying for men, and 1.4% developing and 0.5% dying for women.
It’s worse than cervical cancer (0.6/0.2%), even if you only consider oral/esophageal for women.
Yep, that’s an alarmingly high base rate, so multiplying that by ten is an enormous added risk. So even if the concentration and effect is far lower than in alcoholics, I’d still probably not take that risk.
To make no choice is to make a choice, and to take no action is to take an action. I’d ask the flip side of Lao Mein here—how confident are you, exactly, that your current state of affairs is all that great in an absolute sense, and what are you willing to risk a small chance of in exchange for clear benefits now and in future?
I certainly agree that I’d hold off until I knew the answers to a bunch more questions.
This all seems to rest on the relative increase in oral and esophygeal cancer. 10x sounds like an awful lot. But in terms of decision-making, the absolute increase, not the ratio, is the bottom line. So: what are the absolute likelihoods? If they’re both miniscule, this might not be a deciding factor. Increasing my cancer risk by one in a million might be a good trade for immunity to cavities and gum disease.
If you throw in immunity to bad breath, I’d take that deal. I wonder how large a factor the alcohol vs lactic acid is in bad breath.
I think it’s also worth considering how much ethanol is excreted into the mouth by these bacteria relative to how much in the mouth of a heavy drinker. I’m sure the frequency vs. persistance is also a factor, but I’m not sure how.
On the other hand, if those numbers are much higher, it’s possible that even those without ALDH deficiency shouldn’t take the treatment.
FYI, https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/faq
saysused to sayDoes it? I see:
Emphasis mine.
Hmm, they changed it yesterday.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240416225318/https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/faq
https://web.archive.org/web/20240411113548/https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/faq
Even if it reduces it a bit, there’s no good reason to assume that it causes immunity.
Lumina is about replacing Streptococcus mutans while leaving Lactobacillus alone. Streptococcus mutans lives on dental tissue while Lactobacillus lives on the gum. Both produce lactic acid.
I’m not certain this is a big problem, but it can be. My guess is 60% that this causes a significant increase in oral cancers for ALDH deficiency heterozygotes.
If you add up the upper digestive tract cancers, it looks like 2.7% developing and 0.8% dying for men, and 1.4% developing and 0.5% dying for women.
It’s worse than cervical cancer (0.6/0.2%), even if you only consider oral/esophageal for women.
Yep, that’s an alarmingly high base rate, so multiplying that by ten is an enormous added risk. So even if the concentration and effect is far lower than in alcoholics, I’d still probably not take that risk.
Possibly even without ALDH deficiency.
To make no choice is to make a choice, and to take no action is to take an action. I’d ask the flip side of Lao Mein here—how confident are you, exactly, that your current state of affairs is all that great in an absolute sense, and what are you willing to risk a small chance of in exchange for clear benefits now and in future?