Since publishing my post expressing safety and efficacy concerns about Lumina Probiotic, the anti-cavity genetically modified probiotic, I've received answers to some of my concerns from Aaron Silverbook, the founder. He has also promised to connect me with people connected to Lumina who can answer the rest of my concerns.
Hey Trevor, Aaron here. I appreciate you making the update.
However, I feel you're still downplaying the extent to which, for questions you didn't have the answer to, you assumed the worst. For example:
• You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I posted the sequence publicly.
• You assumed ProBiora didn't work because you misread the title of a paper
• You assumed chlorhexidine wouldn't kill off the bacteria because you misread a (different) paper
• You assumed there was no ComE deletion in BCS3-L1, for reasons unclear to me.
• You assumed we weren't abiding by good manufacturing practices because, when I offered to call you and answer your questions, I...didn't answer your next email within 48 hours??
I had some skepticism, but after talking with our mutual friend Elizabeth, I do believe you're acting out of a desire to help people. That's my motivation too, although it seems likely that we disagree about some FDA issues. I do empathize with your position here, at least, and I think we could have good arguments about this topic, even!
Anyway, I appreciate your impulse to help. But with regards to Lumina, in the future, please limit your criticisms to things that are true.
It's seems quite bad to me when people are a bit trigger happy with serious public allegations based on vague/poorly researched concerns as opposed to actual evidence. Even if there's something to a critique, it erodes credibility in the critique (and you in general) if it's pre-maturely made. I'd personally kind of discount your eventual analysis of the evidence from knowing you seemed biased toward projecting fault from the beginning.
Hey Trevor, Aaron here. I appreciate you making the update.
However, I feel you're still downplaying the extent to which, for questions you didn't have the answer to, you assumed the worst. For example:
• You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I posted the sequence publicly.
• You assumed ProBiora didn't work because you misread the title of a paper
• You assumed chlorhexidine wouldn't kill off the bacteria because you misread a (different) paper
• You assumed there was no ComE deletion in BCS3-L1, for reasons unclear to me.
• You assumed we weren't abiding by good manufacturing practices because, when I offered to call you and answer your questions, I...didn't answer your next email within 48 hours??
I had some skepticism, but after talking with our mutual friend Elizabeth, I do believe you're acting out of a desire to help people. That's my motivation too, although it seems likely that we disagree about some FDA issues. I do empathize with your position here, at least, and I think we could have good arguments about this topic, even!
Anyway, I appreciate your impulse to help. But with regards to Lumina, in the future, please limit your criticisms to things that are true.
you have one motivation and that is to make money
Wish you would keep the original post up. It’s important work.
This sort of investigation is an important public service, thank you... I have some Lumina coming in the mail so I have a vested interest in this.
It's seems quite bad to me when people are a bit trigger happy with serious public allegations based on vague/poorly researched concerns as opposed to actual evidence. Even if there's something to a critique, it erodes credibility in the critique (and you in general) if it's pre-maturely made. I'd personally kind of discount your eventual analysis of the evidence from knowing you seemed biased toward projecting fault from the beginning.
"received answers to some of my concerns" is a pretty disingenuous way of saying "I made up allegations"