Talk:Caries vaccine

message: 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)
replies: text: The term "vaccine" may be used a bit loosely in some cases.  In traditional vaccination models, the body would be sure to recognize a virus as an invader but simply needs a head start to get the antibodies ready.  But a "vaccine" could also be used to describe a preparation that is intended to teach the body that something it is normally exposed to is actually a hostile entity.  (See anergy, sensitization)  The fact that people can be allergic even to harmless pollen and dust proves that it should be possible in concept to make their immune systems turn against a troublesome bacterium.  But this second task is much more poorly understood than the first. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Implausible?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Antibiotics

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe that a lifetime caries treatment is much more profitable than a once-or-few-times treatment through vaccination. 83.196.170.23 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: Agreed. Done. - Dozenist talk 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "economic convenience for the pharmaceutical companies." 

message: Section 2, Line 5: "FDA Phase Ib clinical trials are to be held in 2008.[8]"
It's 2010, does somebody have the result of the trial? otherwise I'm changing it to 'were held'A Traverso (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be held? 

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://io9.com/5855632/a-vaccine-that-could-protect-against-tooth-decay. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  12.1.77.2 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Caries vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502004751/http://www.oragenics.com/sites/default/files/wall_street_transcript_-_oragenics.pdf to http://www.oragenics.com/sites/default/files/wall_street_transcript_-_oragenics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi all, the mouth flora replacement with a competitive S. mutans strain are treatments, but not vaccines, as well as bacteriophages. Maybe these sections should be transferred to the article Tooth decay? --Ghilt (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement and Bacteriophages are not vaccines