|WikiProject Brands||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Dentistry||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Invalid study is cited
The study claims to test the effects of the rinse, but what they actually look at is whether the bacterias are capable of regrowing on a culture media after the saliva has been diluted. Anyone who's taken even high school biology will tell you that yes the results would be the same for both samples, the control and the test samples. The study never looked at the effects of the rinse itself on the ability of the bacteria to grow IN ITS PRESENCE or the amount of plaque actually on the teeth of the subjects after the treatment or control periods. Useless study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Reformulation of product after acquisition by GSK
The original version of Biotene discussed in this page no longer exists.
GSK purchased the product brand and is now marketing a different and completely reformulated product under the Biotene brand name. The packaging is almost identical to the old product. GSK is NOT clearly informing the consumer that they are getting a very different product. GSK's current formulation for Biotene is little different from the other major toothpaste brands available to consumers. GSK even threw in some saccharin, an artificial sweetener, into the new formula - which the old Biotene proudly proclaimed to be free of. The enzymes, and some other ingredients, in the old Biotene product are completely missing in the new GSK formulation. Many people have complained about this to GSK with little result.
This article needs to be updated to reflect this controversy. Perhaps the page could include a list of the product ingredients for the old and new products side by side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowoof (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)