Talk:Phage therapy

message: From what I have read of this article, phages are viruses, which aren't living organisms. They do, however, undergo natural selection. I have changed the misleading sentence.Serrin 02:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is viruses don't have any metabolism outside of a cell.  They are inert particles until they bump into their host. 74.192.200.82 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of this important question belongs in Virus, not this article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phages are not living organisms 

message: Surely the statement that antibiotics were discovered in 1941 is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.6.90 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 June 2007
:Ture, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, but Chain and Florey didn't purify it until 1938. It took a couple of years to come to market after that. I suppose it would be more correct to say that "antibiotics became medically available around 1941. -- MarcoTolo 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antibiotics

message: I cleaned these up. Commercial sites selling or promoting products for phage therapy are not suitable for either, and have been removed. Faculty sites go in external links, they are not references. Fortunately, hidden among the external links were some good usable references, and I formatting them properly and put them in where they seem to belong. That's a preliminary--now we can look at the article (I'm about to read the chapters in McGrath). yes, i had doubts myself about saying "US"--uit is approved in no english speaking country as far as I can tell, but we are not limited to the english speaking world either. but I think the approval elsewhere is still for experimental use only. We should probably word it that way. DGG (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed another reference to a faculty site. They may be conveent summaries, but postings there aren ot considered RSs. DGG (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says they're not- there's no rule on that that I can find. On the contrary, edu sites tend to be at least somewhat scholarly. They're not perfect, but it seems to me you're just removing sources, and ones with plausible and internally consistent information in at the very least; which is probably the best we can hope for right now for a lot of this. The wikipedia usually uses a lot of secondary or tertiary information in practice; it's an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia way is verifiability not truth. In other words, it's a bit more important that we know who said what, than that we say things that are actually true. And it's also important that the people writing the wikipedia not try to say anything (or probably more accurately you can probably say anything you like provided you can find somebody who is notable with the same opinion :-) ). NPOV works best when lots of people add different POVs and then it will often balance out. So anyway removing the verifiability- removing a reference from something and moving it to the external links section is just not right here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: discuss it at the RS noticeboard if you question it. --they have always  been restricted here to external links. NPOV is based on NP:V. V is done from RSs. for science, RSs are peer reviewed articles, and books and reviews published by scholarly publishers, or third party accepted authoritative sources such as the NIH,  and nothing else. Anyone may assert anything on a faculty page, and it is accepted for routine details about their career only. It is not a replacement for peer reviewed publication, or [publication by a reliable academic publisher.  Views are citable if they can be documented. Do not reinsert this section without consensus. I am trying to keep as much of this article as possible and an attempt to keep in unacceptable sources will only hinder this. DGG (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, again. I repeat, show me where it says that in a policy. Either it's scholarly enough to be mentioned from the article or it isn't. You cannot really have it both ways. The wikipedia is primarily about verifiability. You are deliberately removing verifiability from the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is the place, and the discussion page for that article. The only use of a faculty web source is for non controversial bio details about the person--and as a convenient source sometimes fro reprints of peer-reviewed papers. I'll let you read it first and respond, before i delete it again. After that, there's WP:DR, starting with the RS noticeboard.  DGG (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the refs. Now maybe you'll remove the ones to nonauthoritative web sources, and we can see how the article stands. DGG (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're still working, so I will defer detailed comment. But here the basic point in the article: a therapy proposed but not accepted in the US and equally not accepted in almost all EU countries and other developed countries is not mainstream, but Fringe. the article has to be written as   proposed therapy,with emphasis on the mainstream view that it has not yet been accepted. The use of it in what are generally considered medically backwards areas can be shown, the trials can be mentioned. the proposed justifications can be mentioned. anything more is disproportionate weight. I know you find it interesting, and plausible. No one can say it isnt in fact possible and will become standard. When it does, the article can & should be modified accordingly to match our increasing knowledge.  But at present, the weight of medical opinion is that it is at best experimental. to say otherwise . or imply it in the structure of the article, is not being objective. DGG (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Links

message: I have rated this article importance High and quality B.  Good work! I would like to see the article developed into a Good Article and then a Featured Article.  If you need help such as a peer review, please request it on WT:MED.  Thanks.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in reply to an e-mail I have received, asking why I rated the article "good".  I did not:  I rated the article B and praised the work bringing it as far as that.  The e-mail contends there is no verifiable source re clinical efficacy of this technology.  I wouldn't know:  I haven't looked.  However, I do know that the phage technology is already not only an important tool in molecular biology research but also has commercial uses. --Una Smith (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Medicine assessment

message: This article's topic is not WP:FRINGE.  The article is also not yet Good Article quality.  I had to decide between B and Start, and rated it B because I think its editors have tried hard to achieve NPOV.  It still has some POV issues and needs better wiki linking, a better history section, a clear and even-handed "Pros and cons" section (rather than Benefits, Applications, Obstacles), removal of non-therapeutic uses from the Applications section (or a different article title and scope), and more discussion of (or linking to Wikipedia articles that discuss) the extensive use of phage as a research tool in molecular biology.  The article probably should also mention the somewhat related use of viral vectors in engineered vaccines (eg, yellow fever vector live virus vaccines).  This is a very hot topic in vaccine research and development. --Una Smith (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cant se what the use of viral vectors has to do with it. The therapeutic mechanism is totally different. I do not think it has NPOV in the slightest, for it reports speculation as fact, and sources therapeutic claims to unpublished material and un peer reviewed work from minor journals. DGG (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mini review

message: I think it should be mentioned that as with any natural system involving 'natural enemies' (e.g. using the black fingers of death fungus to eradicate cheat grass, using ladybugs to eliminate aphids, etc.), you achieve control but never eradication. As the phage destroy the bacterial population 1) the phage run out of hosts and are destroyed by the environment of the gut and 2) bacteria evolve resistance. So, instead, you create dampened fluctuations in the life cycle of the bacteria. By itself, phage therapy cannot eliminate a bacterial infection. It can, however, bring the population down enough that the immune system can finish the job.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Drawback

message: The article remarks 'phage therapy would be most effective with a cocktail injection'. What is a cocktail injection? I could only find references to 'lethal injection'. Is this how phage therapy is usually administered?
VogonJeltz 10:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A phage cocktail is a mixture of different types of phages sharing the same target(s). The theory is that this approach limits the likelihood that a bacterial culture will develop resistance to any one phage. It also increases the number of potential bacterial target species, which is important as most bacterial infections involve multiple species. Selective pressures are constantly at work on both the bacteria and the bacteriophages so it's difficult to quantify how much better a particular cocktail would work as compared to using a single, purified phage stock. See this paper abstract for a quick summary. §everal⇒|Times 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocktail Injection

message: thanks for fixing that link. DGG (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no comment.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google video

message: I have characterized some speculation as such. As there are no peer-reviewed accounts in any established journal of any success in using phage therapy for any human infection, it has to be made clear that there can be no advantages, only potential advantages, and only potential therapeutic users. 
I'd like to see this work, but I am pretty dubious about saying so until there is some actual reliable evidence. DGG (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets to the problem of verifiability vs truth.  Compare "this works" with "it has been reported that this works."  Even with stacks of articles in top journals, the first statement may be impossible to verify.  The second statement is easy to verify, if a reference is given to the report.  See?  One is a statement about X;  the other is a statement about the published literature about X. --Una Smith (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This is absurd. Science is not more or less 'scientific' because it's made in Russia or some other non- Western country. Speaking and writing English is not a prerequisite for being a scientist, y'know. --213.216.208.242 (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the word: "their". Nobody can get an international reputation without being read internationally. I went to college at a time when it was clear that Russian publications were becoming of at least as much significance as those elsewhere in some areas of applied mathematics, and consequently I and others of similar interest started learning Russian.  Speaking and reading German was prerequist to being a serious physicist or chemist  or biologist in the first 40 years of the 20th century. Not an absolute pre-requisite, but there was no other way of publishing in the major journals or attending international meetings. Similarly today, in those fields not of primarily local interest. The Soviet Union and now Russia has has a number of journals of very high international reputation--and they are translated, for the dual reason that they want others to read them and that others want to read them.  This does not apply to bacteriophage biology or biology in general. DGG (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that phage therapy in the west is fairly new, but the research in mice has been fairly successful, for example:  they showed they were able to save 97% of mice from drug resistant staphyloccus using it. I mean, sure, it's not a human therapy, but then again, the ethics committee probably wouldn't allow them to use it on humans right now- but I bet it works fine.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: speculation

message: I've edited the contents of section 4.2 which contained a mention of apoptosis in phage-infected bacteria. This was a double nonsense. Prokaryotes are not mlticellular (first sentence in previously linked apoptosis), have no apoptosis at all, and what happens to the infected cell (lysis) is not even similar to apoptosis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.69.156 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  apoptosis in bacteria 

message: The image :File:Arrowsmith.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Arrowsmith.jpg

message: At the time when the studies of phage therapy were started on Georgian territory in the 1920s, Georgia was not independent. So, mentioning Russia as another country is incorrect.
The article incorrectly states that phage therapy has been approved only in Georgia. It has been approved in the former Soviet Union and is still used in Russia and other former Soviet republics. There is a 2002 review in a Russian-language journal available here (http://files.school-collection.edu.ru/dlrstore/378ba3de-4e8f-dadd-e84f-4cf4f0b632f1/11-15_03_2002.pdf), which mentions (sometimes, critically) commercial production of phage mixtures, their approved uses, and experiences in Russian, Georgian and Polish medical practice. A blanket claim that the entire Eastern Europe is a medically backward country would bring up a clear NPOV issue. 
The same article explains why phage therapy cannot be adopted in the US at this time. Because of the high specificity of individual phage isolates against specific bacterial strains, the most efficient use of phage therapy is with highly complex mixtures of phages, which might contain some phages with incompletely defined characteristics. The use of such mixtures is prohibited by the FDA rules, and individual characterization of numerous phage strains would make this therapy very expensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.43.244 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has for a long time needed attention from someone fluent in English and Russian, and medically literate. You might be that person. If you'd like to improve the article, be bold. If I can be of service, let me know. --Arcadian (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only in Georgia? 

message: While I have no medical background, this stuff looks to me painfully pseudo-scientific. 46.138.87.188 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudo-science is bunkum dressed up to look like science. Fringe Science is on the bleeding edges of scientific discovery. Would it not be better to say what you can't get your head around, so the that article can be improved - rather than suggesting to us that  the whole article is beyond your comprehension?--Aspro (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't even call phage therapy fringe science, as it has been demonstrated to work - albeit irregularly - in combating bacterial infections in humans.  Sometimes science is just strange. §everal⇒|Times 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this would seem pseudo-scientific. Bacteriophages are some of the earliest discovered viruses. --82.128.190.191 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe science?

message: :The tiny phages have legs adapted for sticking to the bacteria. Then almost like a mosquito, they have a tiny syringe like appendage which, unlike mosquitoes, plant rather than draw blood. The phages once attached implant DNA into the bacterium, the DNA multiplies then these thousands of daughter phages grow bigger than the bacteria, and burst the bacteria from within. These phages then seek new bacteria to prey on ('eat').
This paragraph seems awful and might explain why some may perceive this article as pseudo-scientific.146.134.54.201 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick to scientific jargon

message: A contributor identified as "2602:304:68a6:6d70:d130:1d99:b410:4539" replaced   with  in several places where it looks plausibly appropriate without checking the "horizon" reference.  
However, he also deleted, "To work, the virus has to reach the site of the bacteria, and viruses do not necessarily reach the same places that antibiotics can reach."  This seems inappropriate.  I will reinstate it with an example of phages eliminating bone eating bateria.  
Another editor, User:Wlo1234, added the following:  
Furthermore, phages are known to cause extreme pain to many strains of bacteria, causing the cell to quickly undergo apoptosis in an attempt to ease the discomfort. This has caused growing concerns regarding the morality of using phage therapy. Graham F. HATFULL 12 - Mycobacteriophages : Pathogenesis and Applications, pages 238-255 (in Waldor, M.K., D.I. Friedman, and S.L. Adhya, Phages: Their role in bacterial pathogenesis and biotechnology, 2005, University of Michigan; Sankar L. Adhya, National Institutes of Health: ASM Press).  The basic message may be accurate, but the wording seems to suggest that User:Wlo1234 may be testing the system:  It would take more than a single reference like this to convince this reader that there is a major human concern with the pain and suffering experienced by harmful bacteria.  I will therefore revert this addition.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  curious deletion, bazaar addition 

message: Dr.Showcliniè:  Thanks for your contribution to this article.  I see you inserted a second reference via "[9]".  This should be replaced by ...  for one use and  for the other.  
Your method has two problems:  
# If another reference is added or deleted before [9], the reference "[9]" would point to the wrong item in the reference list unless it was manually adjusted.  
# Secondarily, the preferred method allows one to click on the [9] and be taken to the reflist;  this is not possible with  "[9]".   
Might you be able to fix this?  The current reference [9] does not seem relevant in this context.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Dr.Showcliniè's edit seems to have been only to move citations around, but since the edit was made using the visual editor, the references were copied over incorrectly.  All three of them were list-defined references, and I have restored the named ref tags.  —Laoris (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's magnificent.  Thanks so much.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem footnote and fix 

message: On 2018-05-28 user 5.151.171.66 added the following between the paragraphs on jazz bassist Alfred Gertle and the difficulties in obtaining funding for research:  
:In addition, phage therapy has been associated with the generation of Staphylococcus Aureus strains capable of causing toxic shock, as well as Streptococcus pyogenes strains which induce Scarlet fever. This uncertainty in the genetic mutation outcome induced by bacteriophages further limit their potential therapeutic application, especially given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome.
This may be true, but it should have a source.  The article already provides other examples of similar problems with lysogenic phages but none for lytic phages -- with documentation.  I am not an expert in this field, but I assume it us usually not hard to tell the difference between lytic and lysogenic phages.  
Because this comment is not sourced and because it doesn't mention the type of phage, I will delete it.  If user 5.151.171.66 still feels it belongs, s/he should provide a credible source.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  undocumented claims added by an IP address 

message: User:85.193.204.183 changed "Wrocław" to "Breslau".  The second redirects to article named "Wrocław".  The <ref> for that sentence refers to a page in the web site for the Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, in Wrocław.  "Breslau" is the German name of the city.  That was doubtless the official name of the city under Nazi occupation.  I don't know, but the name of the city probably reverted to "Wrocław" when the German army left there near the end of World War II.  The German-language Wikipedia entry for "Wrocław" is entitled "Breslau".  It therefore may be appropriate to use that name in the German-language version of this article.  Here, however, it should be "Wrocław". I've changed it back to the earlier version -- but now with a link to Wrocław. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrocław or Breslau? 

message: Needed for this
"In former Eastern Europe and Soviet Union states, bacteriophagics have been commonly used for a century with millions of patients treated with few side effects. Bacteriophagic cocktails are available over the counter in pharmacies in Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. In Poland the Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy - Polish Academy of Sciences accepts patients with drug-resistant bacterial infections. "
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers

message: Can it be mentioned somewhere that phage therapies have been done in the USA under "compassionate use" ?
See https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/07/virus-bacteria-phage-therapy/
and https://news.yale.edu/2018/03/08/bacteria-hunting-virus-fished-connecticut-lake-treats-infected-doctor
Genetics4good (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Compassionate use

message: Story of phage therapy treating a bomb blast victim who acquired a drug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection.  Posting in case anyone here wants to use it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  case story 

message: “It is time to find a broader solution to the phage therapy regulatory issues.”
Is it? I’m not saying I agree or disagree with it but the phrasing makes it seem like Wiki is taking a stance on the subject rather than stating the facts? Patches of (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot editorializing by some editors rather than maintaining a neutral tone. Please feel free to remove that sentence and clean up other sections too. MartinezMD (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is time…