Talk:Phage therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phage therapy article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Phages are not living organisms

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)

It is debateable if viruses are alive or not. They dont reproduce outside of cells, but neither do a large number of bacteria. Worker bees dont reproduce either, so are they not alive?RogueNinja 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
Discussion of this important question belongs in Virus, not this article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Is this a particularly balanced artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.23.236.142 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 June 2007

[edit] Antibiotics

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)

[edit] POV

I challenge the POV of this article. It seems to give the position that this is a generally accepted theory, but it apparently is supported only by a few unreliable sources, one book from an obscure publisher, and a handful of published articles. I think it is necessary to remove all undocumented statements, and insert some references to critical reviews from mainstream sources. Proportionate weight must be given--fringe theories are mentioned, but the emphasis is on the accepted viewpoints. The people working here are probably best prepared to do this, but I will lend a hand if necessary. I note this also applies to the corresponding section in the article of Bacteriophage. DGG (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple search on pubmeb reveals multiple positive articles on phage therapy. Im removing the tag. Here is an article, on the right are several more. This from the Lancet: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-4FVCHYK-26N-1&_cdi=4886&_user=142623&_orig=search&_coverDate=10%2F21%2F2000&_sk=996430760&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkWW&md5=9675c4105faf3b0faa96bf9a6196d89a&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

RogueNinjatalk 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand how this might read to a layman like black magic, but there's real science behind this; these viruses have co-evolved with the bacteria over billions of years, just like cheetahs and antelopes, with neither getting away for long. Phage theory is neither miraculous nor is it fringe. Non therapeutic phages are routinely used in bacterial typing in science research, and you can buy them online from catalogues from science supply companies. There's nothing here that is weird; it's just the application of biology to medicine. It's only odd sounding because antibiotics are easier and simpler for doctors to use, and so that that therauputic technique has dominated (and in all probability will continue to except in specialised areas.) However phage therapy was recently authorised by the FDA to treat meat to prevent food poisoning, and probably several other treatments are going through the process.WolfKeeper (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a layman, though its been a while since my PhD from Gunther Stent at Berkeley. The refs. make it absolutely clear that medical use in humans is unproved, unapproved, and speculative. There is one phage II and one phase I trial. The positive results are in unreliable literature. The lancet notes talk about possibilities. The WP article itself says it is not mainstream and use is unverified, and this should go in the lead much more prominently. I think we can try for a better rewording that represents the mainstream science. Non-therapeutic uses of phage is a subject where there is somethign to talk about, but the use of phage in typing is not therapy,and the use of phage in food preservation is not therapy. See WP:FRINGE. But it will be fun to do a proper analysis and get citations. DGG (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, people with multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria seem to have been trekking across to Georgia and coming back with it gone, so it probably does work. There's also been some use in vetinary circles, I read one study where they eradicated a bacteria from a cow shed, and even months later they were unable to reinfect. But I agree that the current article's language is rather overstating the case.WolfKeeper 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
and what you mention does not exactly sound like what would usually be called scientific evidence. Perhaps you could start the re-organisation, and when I have a chance, i will start removing the material that is not supported by reliable sources. DGG (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You should first tag them, and give a chance to be cited.WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you right now: every specific scientific claim needs to be cited. every individual one, as in other medical articles. Dont think I'm rushing you--I don't do that sort of thing, as i know sourcing an article is a serious thing to do properly. DGG (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no immediate or medium term plans to try to get this article to GA or FA status; which is what you seem to be asking for. I'm happy if you label the particular items that you are particularly unhappy with and I'll look at them. Given the state of the article, as with much of the wikipedia, if removal of all of the unsourced material was to occur, then the usefulness of the articles would largely or completely disappear, as many things are true, but unsourced.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
People will work on the other articles also. Let's limit the discussion here to this one. Every therapeutic claim must be sourced. As you are in doubt about what the main ones are, I have added a few source tags DGG (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that the use of the word "treat' implies treat successfully.
Incidentally, no I don't think that's true at all, many approved and well established medical treatments only work 30% of the time or something. Treat implies only that it was used on somebody for something.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If it means "has been used" there needs to be a qualifier. One normally expects peer-reviewed articles. if you want to say "has been reported in newspapers but not peer-reviewed scientific papers", then word it that way. As far as i can tell, the use is still experimental. The first paragraph should say so clearly. Please dont try to give the impression it is an accepted theory, if it is still not approved in the US. see WP:FRINGE, and the comments on proportionate weight. DGG (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No, peer review is not necessary for a source on the wikipedia. It's desirable, but absolutely not required. Notability and verifiability is the requirement. So a notable opinion by a researcher yes; provided it's well referenced who said what; even if not peer reviewed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
And I don't have any problem with pointing out very clearly that it is considered experimental in the west in every potential use right now; that's a NPOV statement.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a US site, it's an English speaking site, but the article should not misrepresent anything.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm challenging your assertion that this is FRINGE. Do you have a cite that it is considered so? Because we have cites above that seem to point towards it not being considered so.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and Links

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)

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) DGG (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] WikiProject Medicine assessment

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)

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)

[edit] Mini review

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)

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)

[edit] Drawback

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)

[edit] Google video

thanks for fixing that link. DGG (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

no comment.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speculation

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)

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)