Talk:Caries vaccine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Implausible? 2 Initial Edit 3 Antibiotics 4 "economic convenience for the pharmaceutical companies."

[edit] Implausible?

An ordinary vaccine would seem to be impossible in this case. If you don't develop an adequate immune response over a lifetime of exposure to the actual bacterial, why would you so respond to an altered version? But a substitute bacteria sounds like a fine idea... 69.87.200.131 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Edit

Article still needs citations for Section one Exdmd 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antibiotics

The section I inserted, "secretes an antibiotic" in regards to GE S. mutans, is kinda off. Someone may want to elaborate on this, replace the word "secretes" etc. The GM S. Mutans is probably producing a Lantibiotic, anyway. Neftaly 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. LtGen 06:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "economic convenience for the pharmaceutical companies."

Development of a vaccine has been under investigation for more than 30 years: already in 1972 a caries vaccine was said to be in animal testing in England, and that it would have begun human testing soon. In fact such vaccines have not managed to come out of the laboratories so far, maybe also because of absence of economic convenience for the pharmaceutical companies.

The bit about pharmaceutical companies -- is that meant to imply a sinister pro-carries conspiracy theory? That sounds like POV if so; if not, the context does not make it clear why these companies wouldn't love to have a such a vaccine -- since it seems as though it would have a universal and therefore highly profitable market. --AC 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That needs to go. It adds nothing substantively helpful in understanding this technology to the article, and serves to turn off the "conspiracy averse" reader. (71.192.231.95 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. Done. - Dozenist talk 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that I got into a conflict with that edit, so a bit of the paragraph you deleted got put back in. I hope the changes I made/end result are to everyone's liking (71.192.231.95 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)).