Talk:Phage therapy

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 don't reproduce outside of cells, but neither do a large number of bacteria. Worker bees don't 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)

Balance

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

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)

Even after that, antibiotics weren't available to civilians until after WW2. Cpt. Leukos (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Cpt. Leukos

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

RogueNinja_talk 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. Don't 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 don't 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)

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)

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)

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)

You do realize that this has been the main treatment in the country of Georgia for like 50 years now, right? The only reason that this hasn't been published in main journals is because it is documented in Russian and Georgian. If someone writes an article on Russian Wikipedia, there will be more sources to cite than there is here, and most of them will come from thew Eliava Institute. This treatment works. Search "phage_The_Virus_That_Cures" on youTube and watch the BBC movie.Cpt. Leukos (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Cocktail Injection

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is my understanding that the lack of evidence for medical phage reasearch has more to do with lack of published sources in English than the amount published material available worldwide. Most research has been publishe in the former Soviet bloc. I place this in the speculation section as I am only currently able to cite this from memory instead of provide you with a verifiable source (sorry). It's been a few years since my Bioogy degree you see. Cheers Gav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.113.50 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

personally, I would be prepared to argue that the Russian research is dubious unless published in their major journals of international reputation. Even then, individual papers not supported by later citation of them in major journals is by definition not accepted in the scientific community. DGG (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think that phage therapy in the west is fairly new, but the research in mice has been fairly successful, for example: [1] 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)

apoptosis in bacteria

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Arrowsmith.jpg

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)

Only in Georgia?

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)

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)

Disadvantages section is ridiculous

I have removed the entire disadvantages section (below) for the following reasons. Many antibiotics have to be refrigerated. The possibility of a bacterium involved in an infection being unknown does not pose a unique disadvantage to phage therapy. If mixed phage therapy is efficacious, then it would be considered analogous to broad spectrum antibiotic therapy (which often consists of multiple antibiotics together). You usually have to culture the bacteria to assess specific sensitivity when treating with antibiotics, as is being implied here for phages (i.e. again, not a specific disadvantage to phage therapy). With regard to phages adapting to bacterial resistance, well that's not a disadvantage so why is it here? Lastly, it seems plausible that the human body might mount an immune response to phage therapy (as the body does to infectious viruses), but it does not seem appropriate to state without evidence that a phage therapy could only be used once (and the "reference" supplied does not seem appropriate). I'd be interested to see if anyone can write in some verifiable evidence-based disadvantages to phage therapy given the paucity of information on this type of therapy.--Xris0 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike antibiotics, phages must be refrigerated until used.

The diversity of phages becomes a disadvantage when the exact species of an infecting bacteria is unknown or if there is a multiple infection. For best results the phages should be tested in the lab prior to application, making phages less suitable for acute cases where time is not available. Mixtures consisting of several phages can fight mixed infections.

As with antibiotics, bacteria can become resistant to treatments, and in this case they can mutate to survive the phage onslaught. However, evolution drives the rapid emergence of new phages that can destroy bacteria that have become resistant. This means that there should be an "inexhaustible" supply.

Phages that are injected into the bloodstream are recognized by the human immune system. Some of them are quickly excreted and, after a certain period, antibodies against the phages are produced by the body. For this reason, it appears that a particular phage can only be used once for intravenous treatment.

References

Fringe science?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stick to scientific jargon

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)

So delete it!!! (I did.) 5.10.152.24 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

curious deletion, bazaar addition

A contributor identified as "2602:304:68a6:6d70:d130:1d99:b410:4539" replaced {{Citation needed|date=December 2007}} with <ref name="horizon"/> 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. <ref>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).</ref> 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)

• I'm absolutely certain that the references provided don't even begin to discuss bacteria feeling pain as a moral issue. Bacteria don't feel pain - at least, not what most people would consider pain, and if we did then antibiotics would pose more of a moral quandry. It's an amusing addition but it's an edit test at best. JHCaufield - talk - 12:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem footnote and fix

Dr.Showcliniè: Thanks for your contribution to this article. I see you inserted a second reference via "^[9]". This should be replaced by <ref name=aName4thisRef>... </ref> for one use and <ref name=aName4thisRef/> for the other.

Your method has two problems:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

That's magnificent. Thanks so much. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

undocumented claims added by an IP address

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)

Wrocław or Breslau?

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)

Page numbers

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)

References

Questionable removal alleging self promotion

@PaleoNeonate: At 2019-02-20T10:05:13 User:PaleoNeonate deleted <ref name="Abedon" /> following the sentence, "Just as bacteria can evolve resistance, viruses can evolve to overcome resistance.", claiming self-promotion. Also deleted was the corresponding entry under "{{reflist|refs=:

<ref name="Abedon">Abedon ST (2012). Salutary contributions of viruses to medicine and public health. In: Witzany G (ed). Viruses: Essential Agents of Life. Springer. 389-405. {{ISBN|978-94-007-4898-9}}.</ref>

I don't know how User:PaleoNeonate identified this alleged self-promotion nor when it was introduced into this article, but it's been in this article for some time. The most recent previous edit was almost 16 days earlier at 2019-02-04T10:18:31‎. I checked, and this Abedon reference was added before then.

I don't know Abedon, and I don't know this work, but I see that name with Abedon is listed as a joint author with E. Kutter on two other references from 2010 and 2011. I'm not an expert in this field, but from studying a number of references in it, it seems to me that Elizabeth Kutter may be the best known figure working in the US in this field.

Accordingly, I'm reverting this deletion of User:PaleoNeonate If User:PaleoNeonate still feels this reference should be deleted, I'd want to see some discussion here of the reasons -- documenting (a) that it was a self-promotion, (b) when it was inserted here, and -- given how long it has been in this article -- (c) why it's not relevant to the statement to which it was attached and shouldn't be there as an exception to the COI rule saying, "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly".

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to make of the edit, so I took a little time to look at the discussions on associated article and talk pages etc. I think the author - Witzany, Guenther, is the issue. He's not a scientist but an organizer and philosopher who has a theory about cellular/DNA communication. A few anon editors started adding his citations to numerous articles that led to some of them getting extended blocks. Even now after numerous edits were removed, when I search for Witzany and look at the applicable hits, I get 32 current articles with him as a source. I think the concern of promotion is legitimate and could be self-promotion vs from someone who is a fan of his. I suggest you look for yourself. Initially I had the same reaction as you, but now I think the removal may have been appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should Witzany be relevant here? Does it matter that he's not a scientist? I think it would matter if there were serious allegations that chapters written by others in books he edits are often grossly misleading portrayals of the subject matter.

The main question here, I think, should be whether the chapter in question by Abedon contains information that could help a reader of this article gain a better understanding of the issues in this article.

The only thing I know that is relevant to that question is that Abedon is a co-author with Elizabeth Kutter on two other publications cited in this article. I'm not an expert in this field, but I have the impression that Kutter has led some of the most important research done in this area in the US since the 1970s, in addition to having been a lead organizer and host of international conferences on this topic.

I think the reference should stay until someone can offer a more cogent summary of the chapter in question by Abdeon that says that it's clearly not relevant and possibly even potentially erroneous overall. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My concern was expressed here, the issue being previous related refspam (Special:Contributions/83.215.123.233). If you think that the citation is helpful and reliable, it can remain on a case by case basis. Sorry for the inconvenience, —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Why should Witzany be relevant here?" - because WP has a policy against conflict of interest and promotion. If this isn't the case, then a relevant inclusion would be fine. MartinezMD (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Compassionate use

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)

Revert

Perhaps this revert can be undone ? I agree it doesn't seem like a big thing, but the GMP really is a big issue as it seems to be a limiting factor for use of phage therapies in hospitals in some European countries at least (legal issues). This was mentioned as such in the documentary "Dokters van morgen: bacteriofagen". That doc is however not good enpugh as a ref; so haven't mentioned that in the text I wrote. Genetics4good (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because it offers little to the value of the article and came across as an advertisement. Based on your edit history and talk page, it seems this has been an issue for you before. I suggest you read the policies on WP:PROMO as has been suggested to you in the past. MartinezMD (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Genetics4good: The removed text really does read as little more than an advert for the company mentioned. If you can find a good quality source that discusses the GMP as a limiting factor, then a brief summary of that might be WP:DUE. If you do find a good source discussing exactly that point, then perhaps you might want to make suggestions for using it here on the talk page to gauge opinions. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Did some additional research.

It seems that, the European Medical Agency requires it for phage therapy and thus it's needed in the Netherlands too, non-GMP produced phage therapies are denied (only GMP-approved ones are allowed). See this pdf, this article, and here is that last article again; now running through Google Translate.

As for the "PROMO" of the company mentioned (APT). I don't promote this, but this seems to be the only company I heard of (through the docu) that actually has GMP approved phage therapies, so yes I mentioned it. I you know of any others, just mention them too. Also note that, even being legal under these circumstances, use is still very much niche (I heard APT currently only sells a phage for a specific disease called cystic fibrosis, and even then it will probably only be used in very specific circumstances (namely as all other medicines fail i.e. through multi-resistance to antibiotics and such. It's mostly just used in compassionate use-type situations (and also only when the exact bacteria that is causing the ilness is also known, because you need to know the exact bacteria first to be able to select the right phage species).

Genetics4good (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is about phage therapy, not lists of manufacturers of phages. I don't see the benefit of listing the company as this isn't a directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The manufacturers can also easily change. What is *particularly* notable here? Otherwise it also seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. MartinezMD (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What's particularly notable ? Well, that the European Medical Agency requires Good Manufacturing Practice for phage therapy to be used on people using it in "most European countries". I heard that some non-GMP use is allowed in some european countries, but probably not many. Even in the USA it seems to be needed, else its only available under "compassionate use".

Genetics4good (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you should reread this section as well as WP:GNG. MartinezMD (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

case story

[2] 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)

It is time…

“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)

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)

Where exactly are more cites needed?

There is a tag for the whole article but I don’t know the subject so am confused where more cites are needed. Could anyone tag more specifically “citation needed”? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several cn tags throughout the article, that's why the template is there. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)