This reminds me of the new-ish treatments that promise to regrow tooth enamel or prevent the growth of bacteria that causes cavities. These won't get widespread adoption until the American Dental Association or whatever says they're safe/effective, but there's a clear conflict of interest because it would have a huge negative impact on their members' business model.
There's money to be made selling a cure, but the creative destruction that it can bring will mean entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail (pun intended) to delay it.
There are 190+ other countries that can also approve it (or that aren’t organized enough to care about drug approvals). If there was an amazing treatment working in Lichtenstein, we’d hear about it.
Thanks for chiming in. What do you think they do, and why do you think they are perceived as being more effective than they actually are? Any thoughts on the bacteria-morphing one?
I don't know too much about the bacteria stuff. Regarding enamel, the native structure is very intricate and contributes to the properties. Most of the acellular chemical reminalization just deposits disorganized minerals on the teeth. It might be improved vs. doing nothing (I'm not sure but I do use fluoride reminalization from the dentist) but its not regenerating your enamel. Imagine just slapping some concrete or mortar all over a slowly decaying intricate brick wall vs. rebuilding the brick structure; you may mitigate complete collapse but you didn't fix the decaying brick wall.
Yes, I knew a few of the authors from my time in grad school. Certainly much closer to mimicking the enamel structure but not a commercial therapy yet.
There's money to be made selling a cure, but the creative destruction that it can bring will mean entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail (pun intended) to delay it.