Talk:History of penicillin

message: Most info here comes from Kevin Brown's book, but it seemed silly to put it as reference for almost every paragraph. Perhaps there is a better way?DanielDemaret 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: on the timeline here, it is shown as 1929, but in the penicillin article, it's 1928. Penicillin#History
Media:Insert formula here
The 1961 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica vol.9 p.371 Title: Fleming, Sir Alexander - states that his discovery of the antibacterial powers of the mold from which penicillin is derived was made in 1928 and was a "triumph of accident and shrewd observation." The entry goes on to state that he published his results in the Journal of Experimental Pathology in 1929.  Spyglasses 10:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of fleming's discovery 

message: A Romanian bacteriologist, Victor Babes (1854-1926) has also been credited with the discovery of penicillin, before Fleming. I don't have an online reference though... 160.39.48.173 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  another father of penicillin 

message: following the timeline here I have read now the personal Articles of John Tyndall and Joseph Lister. In both Articles the Relationship to this Events is not mentioned with a word. -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events in the Article 

message: According to a PBS program on this subject, Fleming did not advocate treating humans directly with penicillin, because he was one of the doctors who had shown the the use of the older antiseptics on war woulds did more harm than good.  This is an important point, because it indicates that he did not discover it as a medicine.  
This is a case, like the recent CCD Nobel prize, where the main credit went to the basic researcher rather than the one who found the important application of the discovery.
David R. Ingham (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think David R. Ingham or PBS misunderstood Fleming's concern.  Yes, he (and others of his time) thought it unlikely that an chemical could be both antibacterial and non-toxic.  Although Paul Ehrlich's arsphenamine was known, it was also difficult to use and not non-toxic.  It wasn't until after Prontosil and sulfanilamide were discovered that the idea of safe and effective antibiotic therapy was widely accepted.  Nevertheless, Fleming did do what we today would call PK and drug stability tests, with very discouraging results.  It was the latter that likely discouraged him from testing penicillin in a challenge test. Reference: Macfarlane, G. "Alexander Fleming in Fact and Fantasy"  New Scientist Mar 1, 1984, pp. 26-28.  --Zeamays (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleming 

message: Milton Wainwright, Miracle Cure: The Story of Antibiotics, Blackwell, (1990), page 35, mentions Frederick S Dennis.  As I recall from having dug out the original papers, Dennis was a surgeon or dentist who presented his study of Penicillium molds at a scientific meeting and included a display of test tubes with various organisms and results showing inhibition in the presence of P. molds. 
Wainwright also mentions some early Russian claims but I have never been able to locate the source documents (even with the help of a Russian colleague in Moscow):
Polotebnov, Manessien, 1872 (Russia)
Lebedinskii, 1877 (Russia)
Tartakovskii, 1904 (Russia) AdderUser (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frederick S Dennis, 1885 (New York); Polotebnov, Manessien, 1872 (Russia); Other Russians 

message: The article presents a long list of people observing bacterial growth being inhibited by molds and antedotes about ancient societies using mold to treat infection.  But there is not evidence presented that any of this has anything to do with penicillin.  
Not all molds produce penicillin. Not even all penicillium strains do.  If they do demonstrate antibacterial activity, it is in many cases due to antimicrobial substances other than penicillin.  And the examples of ancient treatments of infection using mold do not provide any evidence of efficacy to back up the claim that the molds actually had antibacterial activity.  Phlebotomy was used to treat all manner of illness for over a millenium, and we all know that it doesn't do anything. 
Its an interesting history, but none of the information in the article persuasively demonstrates that Fleming was not the first to demonstrate the antibacterial activity of what is now known as penicillin.  Formerly 98 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How about this replacement?
"but he was not the first to use its properties in medicine. " 
might be replaced with 
"he may not have been the first to use its properties in medicine. This is a list of prior incidents similar cases, although there is no conclusive evidence that the same substance was used."
There are many articles suggesting that he may not have used it first. This way, that issue is addressed, at least. "
Star Lord  -   星爵 (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy tag 

message: This article doesn't really seem to fit the title. Everything before 1870 is about the history of using fungi as antibiotics. Everything from there to 1928 is about antibiotic properties of certain Penicillium species. It's not until maybe 1920 and after that the events are actually about the history of penicillin. The penicillin article actually has a pretty great history section. Maybe we could merge this article into that history section, as well as a section on the Penicillium page about "History" or "Role in medicine" or something. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with a merge. It looks like the majority of the information in the History of penicillin article is already in the history section of the Penicillin article, so a merge wouldn't even be that great of a change. One thing we would want to consider is how it would affect the Penicillin article. Would we include the table, or just insert information that wasn't already in the penicillin article? The history section of the penicillin article is also pretty long, so a couple people may raise the issue that content should be moved from the history section to the history article. That's also legitimate, but I think the current merge proposal is fine. I'll notify the talk page at the Penicillin article so that anyone watching the page will know that this discussion is happening. Icebob99 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of penicillin. 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/20090528100504/http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/fleming.htm to http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/fleming.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The situation described in the outline reads like a variation of the following incident described in Paul de Kruif's 1926 Microbe Hunters: 
"He had not the precise methods of growing microbes pure—it took the patience of Koch to devise such things—and one day to his disgust, Pasteur observed that a bottle of boiled urine in which he had planted anthrax bacilli was swarming with unbidden guests, contaminating microbes of the air that had sneaked in. The following morning he observed that there were no anthrax germs left at all; they had been completely choked out by the bacilli from the air.
At once Pasteur jumped to a fine idea: “If the harmless bugs from the air choke out the anthrax bacilli in the bottle, they will do it in the body too! It is a kind of dog-eat-dog!” shouted Pasteur, and at once he put Roux and Chamberland to work on the fantastic experiment of giving guinea-pigs anthrax and then shooting doses of billions of harmless microbes into them—beneficent germs which were to chase the anthrax bacilli round the body and devour them—they were to be like the mongoose which kills cobras. . .
Pasteur gravely announced: “That there were high hopes for the cure of disease from this experiment,” but that is the last you hear of it, for Pasteur was never a man to give the world of science the benefit of studying his failures."
Is Pasteur's supposed "discovery" of penicillin a mangling/misunderstanding of this incident?  
It is clear that in this incident had nothing to do with mold and based on Kruif's timeline it appears to be in the right time.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pasteur and penicillin 

message: Thanks for this addition, .  To hopefully make it a little clearer, I've re-worded to 
 
Can you please confirm whether this preserves the intended meaning?  I can't read the cited source as it is not in English. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early research 

message: In the next few weeks I will be adding a lot of information about the manufacturing process of penicillin and its evolution over time.RandyGreeves (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits 

message: I added a new section about penicillin resistance. Antibiotic resistance is a new problem that arose with the use of penicillin.
I moved a sentence from Stabilization and mass production to this section, and added some info to the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swinkleman (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penicillin 

message: Considering how important is this part of the 12-year-long penicillin epic, the section is surprisingly short, almost shorter than Alexander Fleming#Purification and stabilisation. Could someone with a better knowledge of the subject than me please at least copy everything which is possible from there and add some more details on why it was possible in 1939 to do what Fleming and his colleagues struggled with for years before? Ain92 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded this section. The reasons though are: (1) Florey was a first rate scientist while Fleming was an ordinary one; (2) he assembled and directed a team of experts on a concerted attack on all aspects of the problem; (3) who persisted until they succeeded. It is worth noting that Fleming and his associates did not struggle "for years" but gave up after just one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The isolation section is too brief 

message: This material is not within the scope of this page. Minute details about individual laboratories are not needed for an encyclopedic entry about the history of the over-arching broad topic of penicillin history. It is also a combination of uncited and poorly cited. We do not need a summary of a loosely related book halfway through the page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just noticed that the single source cited for all of this is a book written by you, the person who edited this content into the page. That is original research and it is unacceptable. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: agree, and when I reverted the addition it was entirely uncited. Artem.G (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaxo history sections