Talk:Carcinogenic bacteria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creation of this page

Talk:Cancer has extensive discussion of this topic, with some references. Searching PubMed for "mycoplasma cancer" returns almost 700 articles including 61 review articles. So, there is plenty of good factual information on this topic, quite apart from the question of whether bacteria cause cancer. --Una Smith 20:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Una Smith: Let me know if I can be of any help contributing to this article. I have a good body of historical information on the subject. I am proposing the following introduction under the subtitle "History of Cancer Bacteria"

Assessments

After spending a few hours evaluating unassessed pages for the WikiMedicine Project, I took the liberty of assessing this page. Keep up the good work, everyone. --Una Smith 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Cancer Bacteria

(please see REVISED TEXT below)

The history of cancer bacteria research, especially in the United States, is a long and controversial one. In 1926, the Canadian physician Thomas Glover published Progress in Cancer Research and claimed that a specific bacterium could be consistently isolated from the neoplastic tissues of animals and humans. He claimed the organism when subcultured, displayed a large degree of pleomorphism and exhibited filter-passing forms. Glover repeated his work at the Public Hygiene Service (now the National Institutes of Health) completing his studies in 1929 and publishing his findings in 1930 (Glover, T.J., “The bacteriology of cancer”, Canada Lancet and Practitioner, 74:19, 1930). He asserted that a vaccine or anti-sera manufactured from his organism could be used to treat cancer patients with varying degrees of success. However, scientists within the Public Hygiene Service---prompted by James Ewing MD one of the premier cancer specialists in the United States and also chairman of Sloan Memorial Hospital in New York City---challenged Glover’s claims and asked him to repeat his findings to better establish quality control. Refusing to do so and continuing his work independently, Glover abandoned mainstream medicine. Failing to seek consensus via the established channels, Glover's claims and results remained controversial and inconclusive.

In 1931, Cornell University pathologist Elise L’Esperance reported the presence of acid-fast, Tuberculosis-like organisms in Hodgkin’s disease (L’Esperance E. Studies in Hodgkin’s disease. Annal Surg 1931;93:162-8), French physician George Mazet implicated a bacterial association with leukemia and also Hodgkin’s disease (G. Mazet. “Etude bacteriolgigue sur la maladie d’Hodgkin,” Montpellier Medicine, (June/August 1941), and a number of other physicians or scientists, including the German von Brehmer (“Siphonosopra polymorpha n. sp.: ein neuer microorganismus des blutes, seine beziehung zur tumorgenese. Med Welt, 8:1178-1185), the Irish physician W.M. Crofton (“The True Nature of Viruses.” Staples Press Ltd, London, England, 1936) and EJ Villesquez of France (“Le Parasitisme Latent des Cellules du Sang chez l’Homme, en Particulier dans le Sang des Cancreeux.” Librarie Maloine, Paris, France), all reported similar cancer bacteria associations. In one case, an Italian scientist named Clara Fonti reportedly inoculated herself in the chest wall with a metastasizing mammary carcinoma and claimed to note neoplastic changes in her own tissues (Fonti, C.J., Eziopatogenese del Cancro, Amadeo Nicola.& c. Milan, Italy 1958)---this alleging to demonstrate the transmissibility of cancer bacteria. Fonti’s claims, however, weren’t independently corroborated.

In some cases, claims were made that anti-sera or vaccines derived from suspected cancer-associated bacteria could be used therapeutically. In 1953, the long term results of an anti-bacterial vaccine trial involving 100 patients diagnosed with different stages and types of cancer was reported by Dr. John E. White at the 6th International Congress of Microbiology in Rome, Italy. While White claimed a number of favorable responses, the trial was not blinded, was not supervised or monitored by any independent mainstream cancer agency, and the actual severity as well as diagnostic authenticity of the cancers-in-question are cited as problems which pose serious challenges to White’s claims of success.

One of the most controversial of the cancer-bacteria proponents was Virginia Livingston MD, a Newark based physician, who in 1950, published a paper claiming that a specific Mycobacterium was associated with neoplasia (Wuerthele-Caspe, V et al, “Cultural properties and pathogenicity of certain microorganisms obtained from various proliferative and neoplastic diseases.” Am J Med Sci 220:638-648, 1950. Livingston believed that this organism was intermittently acid-fast, highly pleomorphic, and taxonomically related to the leprae and tuberculin bacilli. She, along with several colleagues including microbiologist Eleanor-Alexander Jackson, continued her research throughout the 1950’s and eventually proposed a name for her organism, calling it Progenitor Cryptocides. Livingston also proposed a treatment protocol based on anti-microbial vaccines similar in concept to Glovers’ which she reported on in a 1965 publication (Livingston VW, Alexander-Jackson E: “An experimental biologic approach to the treatment of neoplastic disease. J Am Med Wom Assoc 20:858-866, 1965).

Meanwhile, the National Cancer Institute launched it own preliminary investigation of cancer bacteria, and during the period 1963 through 1974 (personal communication: Carol Case, Chief, Public Inquiries section, Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, October, 1986), conducted a small series of studies which focused primarily on the culturing of cancer bacteria from animal and/or human cancers in an attempt to establish a guilt-by-association relationship between the two (source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1963-1974). The NCI investigations involved several different species, including Mycoplasma orale, Mycoplasma fermentans, Mycoplasma neurolyticum and Mycoplasma pneumoniae and many of the studies involved examination of leukemic bloods.

At the conclusion of the studies, results were mixed, with some researchers concluding there was no statistically relevant oncogenic association between certain Mycoplasma species (Ebbesen, P and Lind, K., “Lack of Evidence for Oncogenic or amyloid Inducing Qualities of Mycoplasma Neurolyticum Inoculated Into Balb/C Mice,” Acta Path Micorbiol Scand, 76, 594—600, 1969) while others concluded “an association between Mycoplasma and acute leukemia” as valid (Barile, M.F., et al. “Isolation of Mycoplasma orale From Leukemic Bone Marrow and Blood by Direct Culture.” JNCI vol. 36, pp.155-159, 1965). Others took a more cautious view and reported the “importance of (Mycoplasma/cancer) association(s)” due the fact that “latent mycoplasma were repeatedly isolated from mice under stress with malignant disease” (Tully, J., “Mycoplasma In Leukemic and Nonleukemic Mice” Ann NY Acad Sci, July 29, 1967 pp 345-353).

In October 1986, however, the NCI announced in a letter that its official stand was the 1963-1974 investigation failed to reach a positive conclusion (Case: ibid). NCI and other mainstream investigators---while questioning the role of cancer bacteria in oncogenesis---believed that such bacteria were, in fact, common invaders of cancer tissues, acting more as parasitic agents of opportunism rather than causality. Bolstering this view was the fact that Mycioplasma were known to be notorious contaminants of laboratory culture and other medium.

The year the NCI studies were concluded, Livingston reported an association between cancer-related bacteria and human choriogondatropin (HCG), a growth hormone commonly associated with pregnancy (Livingston VW. "Some cultural, immunological, and biochemical properties of Progenitor cryptocides.” Trans NY Acad Sci 36:569-582, 1974). Her findings were later corroborated, in part, by a Pittsburgh-based scientist, Hernan Acevedo (Acevedo, HF et al., “Immunohistochemical localization of a choriogonadotropin-like protein in bacteria isolated from cancer patients.” Cancer 41:1217-1229, 1978) who also synthesized HCg from cancer-related bacteria.

Livingston claimed that HCG was a common denominator linking cancer and bacteria; she further alleged that cancer tissues utilized HCG for the purpose of avoiding immunosurveilance, since some data suggested the human embryo used HCG in the same fashion (White, A and Loke Y. "Increased Sialylation of Surface Glycopeptides of Human Trophoblasts Compared with Fetal Cells from the Same Conceptus." J Exp Med 1978;148:1087-92). In a critique of Livingston’s claims and methods, however, the NCI argued that “HCG is produced by a variety of bacteria from both cancer patients, and normal tissues” (“Livingston-Wheeler therapy” in CA Cancer J Clin 1990;103-108) though Acevedo reported in additional studies that “the synthesis and expression of hCG, its subunits, and its fragments, is a common biochemical denominator of cancer, providing the scientific basis for studies of its prevention and/or control by active and/or passive immunization against these sialoglycoproteins.” (Acevedo HF, et al. “Human chorionic gonadotropin-beta subunit gene expression in cultured human fetal and cancer cells of different types and origins,” Cancer, vol.76, pp.1476-1475, 1995 Oct 15).

In 1990, the NCI published a thorough review of Livingston’s theories and claimed that her methods of classifying the cancer bacterium she referred to as “Progenitor Cryptocides” had contained “some remarkable errors” (CA Cancer J Clin 1990;103-108). Independent analysis of this organism using DNA-DNA hybridization technology revealed its actual classification as a Staphylococcus, not a Mycobacterium as Livingston had claimed, and this finding caused much of Livingston’s research to be cast in doubt. Further, Livingston had not preserved earlier samples of her cultures taken from the blood and tissues of cancer patients in which she claimed existed Mycobacteria and instead, routinely screened cancer patients’ urine samples for HCG-positive bacteria assuming these were positive for Mycobacteria according to Dr. Alva Johnson, a professor at the Dept of Microbiology and Immunology at Eastern Va Medical School who had independently reviewed the NCI critique of Livingston (personal correspondence, May 27, 1992). Johnson further asserted that Livingston’s assumptions reflected an egregious indifference to scientific method and the need to build consensus among medical peers.

Livingston died in 1990 and five years later, an Asian-born scientist, SC Lo, working at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C., rekindled the cancer bacteria debate when he published a paper titled “Mycoplasmas and oncogenesis: persistent infection and multistage malignant transformation” (see: Tsai S, Wear DJ, Shih JW, in Proc Natl Acad Sci,92(22):10197-201,1995.

According to Lo, Mycoplasma fermentans and Mycoplasma penetrans were capable of inducing malignant cell transformation in cultured mouse embryo cells, C3H/10T1/2 (C3H) after 6 serial passages lasting 1 wk per passage. He further wrote that up until the 11th passage, “malignant changes were reversible if mycoplasmas were eradicated by antibiotic treatment”, but at 18 passages, “irreversible…..transformation” occurred.

Subsequent to Lo’s paper and as of 2007, there were a minimum of 14 published papers in the peer reviewed literature claiming to document an association between various species of Mycoplasma, and various animal and human cancers (Tsai et al.) (Ketcham et al.) (Pehlivan et al.) (Huang et al), (Zhang et al.).

NOTE: Of course, the above is open to suggestion, revision and anything else that will lend authenticity to the article.Ronsword 02:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a start. The target is not authenticity, but accuracy and conciseness. So here's a rewrite of the first couple sentences:

The history of cancer bacteria research, especially in the United States, is a long and controversial one. InThis history begins in 1926, the Canadian physician Thomas Glover published Progress in Cancer Research and claimed with the report that a specific bacterium could be consistently isolated from the neoplastic tissuestumors of animals and humans.

Ronsword, as I see it the problem with your contributions is not its content, which is fine; the problem is your tone. Your tone is not neutral; you seem to try to stimulate the reader with a writer's artifice, clever turns of phrase, cliches, and other manner of "over writing", which rather obscures your content. Some of your readers here plainly respond badly to the stimulation. It annoys me, but I think I can resist acting out. So, let's delete the biographies and emphasize the science. Biographies of the scientists involved belong on other pages. --Una Smith 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Una Smith, but I'm not quite following you. What, specifically, is wrong with the above tone and what, exactly do you mean by 'acting out'? To be honest, I've written the above content as objectively and methodically as I know possible and, in fact, have taken a more critical stance so as not to take a POV in favor of cancer bacteria.

Could you please provide specific examples of 'clever turns of phrase', 'over writing' and 'cliches'? I'd like some specific examples that I can correct if appropriate. Or better yet, why don't you submit a full edit of the above history that you think makes better sense, and I'll provide you my feedback. Frankly, I've spent the entire day writing this history and at the moment, am tired of writing another word!:-)

As for biographies, I wasn't trying to present biographies; I'm trying to present historical context. How can one present a "history" on a subject without presenting a little background information on the person's involved? Ronsword 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as an example let's take the first sentence:

The history of cancer bacteria research, especially in the United States, is a long and controversial one.

Why especially in the United States? In the next sentence you make a point of mentioning a Canadian started it. "Long and controversial" is subjective and relative. And boring. And it displays the writer's limited knowledge. For example, the literature arguing over the etiology of fetus in fetu goes back hundreds of years in western Europe, but what about in China? And in India? And... Do you get my point? As a lead sentence, this one stinks. It promises only that the following text will be long and controversial, and parochial (US-centric). How boring! --Una Smith 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about fetus in fetu; we're talking about cancer bacteria and it's in the United States where the bulk of controversy (which has, in fact, been a long and controversial one---having lasted almost one century and having created big-time debate---has centered and crystallized. If the controversy were of shorter duration, and had transpired in India, I'd gladly write about it as such! Facts are facts.Ronsword 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)- 2. though I do see your point and have deleted a specific US reference. PLease see main articleRonsword 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that, rather than picking apart a sentence here or there, rewrite the essay the way you---or anyone else thinks it should go. That way, we might reach a reasonable consensus and I can get to constructively criticize/edit your (or anyone else's writing); how's about it? I eagerly await your rewrite.

BTW, did you ever hear the phrase "you can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar?" You've certainly started out this discussion by being very critical, very negative, and very judgmental don't you think? My sentences "stink", my writing is "boring" and I'm "US-centric" (note references to Canada, France, Ireland and Germany in the article). Those aren't very nice ways to establish discourse with people Una Smith. I'm a published author, and I certainly know how to welcome criticism when it's constructive and specific. So please, let's try to start all over again and be nicer this time, because people respond better to kindness, not negativity, okay? Now can we get back to work on constructing a great article? Ronsword 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronsword, you asked for a specific example; I gave one. --Una Smith 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The factual content of this text looks good. It is well-referenced and appears accurate. However it reads more like an editorial or essay rather than an encyclopedic article. In principle it is worthy of addition to the article, but it would require editing some of the redundant & POV text. Axl 07:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I see your point. It is difficult sometimes to not 'sound' like a writer when one is a writer!:-) Points well taken. I'll try and do a rewrite by cutting out some of the extra baggage and condensing points into briefer references. I welcome additional rewrites from others.Ronsword 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Axl has it. One mark of a good encyclopedic article is that the reader has no sense of the presence of an author. There is no "voice". Also, one mark of a good history is that any "color" details are an integral part of the story, not tangents that throw the reader off the story line. --Una Smith 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

REVISION OF ABOVE TEXT

Here's my revision. I eliminated any 'lead in words', adjectives, what I believe Una meant as 'turns of phrases' and any conclusions or sentiments that could be seen as POV issues. I'm not sure I can make this any more objective than it is; also not so sure it is as stimulating as some might like it. Please review accordinglyRonsword 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Cancer Bacteria

Cancer bacteria research began early in the 20th century. In 1926, a Canadian physician named Thomas Glover published Progress in Cancer Research and claimed that a specific bacterium could be consistently isolated from the neoplastic tissues of animals and humans. Glover reported that the organism when subcultured, displayed a large degree of pleomorphism and exhibited filter-passing forms. Glover was asked to continue his work at the Public Hygiene Service (now the National Institutes of Health) completing his studies in 1929 and publishing his findings in 1930 (Glover, T.J., “The bacteriology of cancer”, Canada Lancet and Practitioner, 74:19, 1930). He asserted that a vaccine or anti-sera manufactured from his organism could be used to treat cancer patients with varying degrees of success. According to historical accounts, scientists from the Public Hygiene Service challenged Glover’s claims and asked him to repeat his findings to better establish quality control. Glover refused to do so and continued his work independently; not seeking consensus, Glover's claims and results led to controversy and are today, not considered to have merit (see “Unproven Methods of Cancer Management in CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol 40, No 2 March/April 1990 p 104).

In 1931, Cornell University pathologist Elise L’Esperance reported the presence of acid-fast, Tuberculosis-like organisms in Hodgkin’s disease (L’Esperance E. Studies in Hodgkin’s disease. Annal Surg 1931;93:162-8), French physician George Mazet implicated a bacterial association with leukemia and also Hodgkin’s disease (G. Mazet. “Etude bacteriolgigue sur la maladie d’Hodgkin,” Montpellier Medicine, (June/August 1941), and a number of other physicians or scientists, including the German von Brehmer (“Siphonosopra polymorpha n. sp.: ein neuer microorganismus des blutes, seine beziehung zur tumorgenese. Med Welt, 8:1178-1185), the Irish physician W.M. Crofton (“The True Nature of Viruses.” Staples Press Ltd, London, England, 1936) and EJ Villesquez of France (“Le Parasitisme Latent des Cellules du Sang chez l’Homme, en Particulier dans le Sang des Cancreeux.” Librarie Maloine, Paris, France), all reported similar cancer bacteria associations. In one case, an Italian scientist named Clara Fonti reportedly inoculated herself in the chest wall with a metastasizing mammary carcinoma and claimed to note neoplastic changes in her own tissues (Fonti, C.J., Eziopatogenese del Cancro, Amadeo Nicola.& c. Milan, Italy 1958).

In some cases, claims were made that anti-sera or vaccines derived from suspected cancer-associated bacteria could be used therapeutically. In 1953, for example, the results of an anti-bacterial vaccine trial involving 100 patients said to be diagnosed with different stages and types of cancer was reported by Dr. John E. White at the 6th International Congress of Microbiology in Rome, Italy. White said there were a number of favorable responses, but critics noted that the trial was not blinded, supervised, or monitored by any independent mainstream cancer agency, and the actual severity as well as diagnostic authenticity of the cancers-in-question not verifiable.

In 1950, a Newark based physician named Virginia Livingston MD published a paper claiming that a specific Mycobacterium was associated with neoplasia (Wuerthele-Caspe, V et al, “Cultural properties and pathogenicity of certain microorganisms obtained from various proliferative and neoplastic diseases.” Am J Med Sci 220:638-648, 1950. Livingston believed that this organism was intermittently acid-fast, highly pleomorphic, and taxonomically related to the leprae and tuberculin bacilli. She, along with several colleagues including microbiologist Eleanor-Alexander Jackson, continued research throughout the 1950’s and eventually proposed a name for the organism, calling it Progenitor Cryptocides. Livingston also proposed a treatment protocol based on anti-microbial vaccines similar in concept to Glovers’ which she reported on in a 1965 publication (Livingston VW, Alexander-Jackson E: “An experimental biologic approach to the treatment of neoplastic disease. J Am Med Wom Assoc 20:858-866, 1965).

Beginning in 1963, the National Cancer Institute launched it own preliminary investigation of cancer bacteria, and until 1974, conducted several studies which focused primarily on the culturing of cancer bacteria from animal and/or human cancers in an attempt to establish a guilt-by-association relationship between the two (personal communication: Carol Case, Chief, Public Inquiries section, Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, October, 1986), (source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1963-1974). The NCI investigations involved several different species, including Mycoplasma orale, Mycoplasma fermentans, Mycoplasma neurolyticum and Mycoplasma pneumoniae and many of the studies involved examination of leukemic bloods.

The NCI studies produced various results. In one study, researchers concluded there was no statistically relevant oncogenic association between certain Mycoplasma species (Ebbesen, P and Lind, K., “Lack of Evidence for Oncogenic or amyloid Inducing Qualities of Mycoplasma Neurolyticum Inoculated Into Balb/C Mice,” Acta Path Micorbiol Scand, 76, 594—600, 1969). In another, investigators concluded there was “an association between Mycoplasma and acute leukemia” (Barile, M.F., et al. “Isolation of Mycoplasma orale From Leukemic Bone Marrow and Blood by Direct Culture.” JNCI vol. 36, pp.155-159, 1965). Another NCI paper stated the “importance of (Mycoplasma/cancer) association(s)” because “latent mycoplasma were repeatedly isolated from mice under stress with malignant disease” (Tully, J., “Mycoplasma In Leukemic and Nonleukemic Mice” Ann NY Acad Sci, July 29, 1967 pp 345-353).

As of October 1986, the NCI’s position was the 1963-1974 investigation failed to reach a positive conclusion (Case: ibid). NCI and other mainstream investigators---while questioning the actual role of cancer bacteria in oncogenesis---believed that such bacteria were common invaders of cancer tissues, acting more as parasitic agents of opportunism rather than involved in causality. Mycoplasma are known to be notorious contaminants of laboratory culture and other medium.

In 1974, Livingston reported an association between cancer-related bacteria and human choriogondatropin (HCG), a growth hormone commonly associated with pregnancy (Livingston VW. "Some cultural, immunological, and biochemical properties of Progenitor cryptocides.” Trans NY Acad Sci 36:569-582, 1974). Hernan Acevedo, a Pittsburgh-based scientist, also reported that HCG could be synthesized from cancer-related bacteria. (Acevedo, HF et al., “Immunohistochemical localization of a choriogonadotropin-like protein in bacteria isolated from cancer patients.” Cancer 41:1217-1229, 1978).

Livingston believed that HCG was a common denominator linking cancer and bacteria, and alleged that cancer tissues utilize HCG for the purpose of avoiding immunosurveilance, basing her ideas on data suggesting the human embryo uses HCG in the same fashion (White, A and Loke Y. "Increased Sialylation of Surface Glycopeptides of Human Trophoblasts Compared with Fetal Cells from the Same Conceptus." J Exp Med 1978;148:1087-92). In a later critique of Livingston’s claims and methods, the NCI argued that “HCG is produced by a variety of bacteria from both cancer patients, and normal tissues” (“Livingston-Wheeler therapy” in CA Cancer J Clin 1990;103-108).

Acevedo reported in additional studies that “the synthesis and expression of hCG, its subunits, and its fragments, is a common biochemical denominator of cancer, providing the scientific basis for studies of its prevention and/or control by active and/or passive immunization against these sialoglycoproteins.” (Acevedo HF, et al. “Human chorionic gonadotropin-beta subunit gene expression in cultured human fetal and cancer cells of different types and origins,” Cancer, vol.76, pp.1476-1475, 1995 Oct 15).

In 1990, the NCI published a review of Livingston’s theories and said that her methods of classifying the cancer bacterium she referred to as “Progenitor Cryptocides” had contained “some remarkable errors” (CA Cancer J Clin 1990;103-108). Independent analysis of this organism using DNA-DNA hybridization technology revealed its actual classification as a Staphylococcus, not a Mycobacterium as Livingston had stated. According to Dr. Alva Johnson, a professor at the Dept of Microbiology and Immunology at Eastern Va Medical School who had independently reviewed the NCI critique, Livingston had not preserved earlier samples of her cultures taken from the blood and tissues of cancer patients in which she claimed existed Mycobacteria and instead, routinely screened cancer patients’ urine samples for HCG-positive bacteria assuming these were positive for Mycobacteria (personal correspondence, May 27, 1992). Johnson noted that Livingston’s assumptions reflected “sloppy” science, and adversely affected the protocols needed to build consensus among medical peers (ibid).

Livingston died in 1990 and five years later, Dr. SC Lo, working at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C., published a paper titled “Mycoplasmas and oncogenesis: persistent infection and multistage malignant transformation” (see: Tsai S, Wear DJ, Shih JW, in Proc Natl Acad Sci,92(22):10197-201,1995. According to Lo, Mycoplasma fermentans and Mycoplasma penetrans were capable of inducing malignant cell transformation in cultured mouse embryo cells, C3H/10T1/2 (C3H) after 6 serial passages lasting 1 wk per passage. He further wrote that up until the 11th passage, “malignant changes were reversible if mycoplasmas were eradicated by antibiotic treatment”, but at 18 passages, “irreversible…..transformation” occurred.

Subsequent to Lo’s paper and as of 2007, there were a minimum of 14 published papers in the peer reviewed literature claiming to document an association between various species of Mycoplasma, and various animal and human cancers (Tsai et al.) (Ketcham et al.) (Pehlivan et al.) (Huang et al), (Zhang et al.).

Ronsword, perhaps you would copy this text across to the main article? Also, could you change the references to in-line citations? I'll assist with some of the editing on the main page. Axl 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Axl: Please see main article. Below are the corresponding references; I realize these reference numbers conflict with those already listed in the main article, but I was deferring to you to help with these edits? Also please note the very last sentence in the main piece referring to a minimum of "14 published studies". I wasn't sure how to reference these? Thanks for your assistance and commentary Ronsword 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronsword, converting hand made references to Wikipedia style is a very tedious chore; that's a lot to ask someone else to do. --Una Smith 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant Axl's 'help' as in insuring correct format of edits (I was never much good at these). I will get around to them at some point. Actually, hiring a secretary wouldn't be a bad idea.....Ronsword 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Glover, T.J. (1930). “The bacteriology of cancer”. Canada Lancet and Practitioner, 74:19

2. “Unproven Methods of Cancer Management”. (March/April 1990). CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 40:(2):104.

3. L’Esperance E. (1931). “Studies in Hodgkin’s disease”. Annal Surg, 93:162-8.

4. Mazet, G. (June/August 1941). “Etude bacteriolgigue sur la maladie d’Hodgkin”. Montpellier Medicine.

5. von Brehmer, W. “Siphonosopra polymorpha n. sp.: ein neuer microorganismus des blutes, seine beziehung zur tumorgenese”. Med Welt, 8:1178-1185.

6. Crofton, W.M. (1936). “The True Nature of Viruses.” Staples Press Ltd, London, England.

7. Villesquez, E.J. (1955). “Le Parasitisme Latent des Cellules du Sang chez l’ Homme, en Particulier dans le Sang des Cancreeux.” Librarie Maloine, Paris, France.

8. Fonti, C.J. (1958). “Eziopatogenese del Cancro”. Amadeo Nicola.& c. Milan, Italy.

9. Wuerthele-Caspe, V et al. (1950). “Cultural properties and pathogenicity of certain microorganisms obtained from various proliferative and neoplastic diseases.” Am J Med Sci, 220:638-648.

10. Livingston VW, Alexander-Jackson E. (1965). “An experimental biologic approach to the treatment of neoplastic disease”. J Am Med Wom Assoc, 20:858-866.

11. Personal communication from: Carol Case, Chief, Public Inquiries section, Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute. (October, 1986).

12. source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (1963-1974).

13. Ebbesen, P. and Lind, K. (1969). “Lack of Evidence for Oncogenic or amyloid Inducing Qualities of Mycoplasma Neurolyticum Inoculated Into Balb/C Mice”. Acta Path Micorbiol Scand, 76:594—600.

14. Barile, M.F., et al. (1965). “Isolation of Mycoplasma orale From Leukemic Bone Marrow and Blood by Direct Culture”. JNCI, 36:155-159.

15. Tully, J. (1967). “Mycoplasma In Leukemic and Nonleukemic Mice”. Ann NY Acad Sci, July 28;143(1):345-352.

16. Case, ibid.

17. Livingston, V.W. (1974). "Some cultural, immunological, and biochemical properties of Progenitor cryptocides.” Trans NY Acad Sci, 36:569-582.

18. Acevedo, H.F. et al. (1978). “Immunohistochemical localization of a choriogonadotropin-like protein in bacteria isolated from cancer patients”. Cancer, 41:1217-1229.

19. White, A and Loke Y. (1978). "Increased Sialylation of Surface Glycopeptides of Human Trophoblasts Compared with Fetal Cells from the Same Conceptus". J Exp Med, 148:1087-92.

20. “Unproven Methods of Cancer Management.” Ibid.

21. Acevedo H.F., et al. (1995). “Human chorionic gonadotropin-beta subunit gene expression in cultured human fetal and cancer cells of different types and origins,” Cancer, 76:1476-1475, Oct 15.

22. “Unproven Methods of Cancer Management”, ibid.

23. Personal communication from: Dr. Alva Johnson, Dept of Microbiology and Immunology, Eastern Va Medical School, May 27, 1992.

24. ibid.

25. Lo SC, et al. (1995). “Mycoplasmas and oncogenesis: persistent infection and multistage malignant transformation”. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 92(22):10197-10201.

26. Diller, I.C. (1974). “Tumor Incidence in ICR/Albino and C57/B16JNIcr Male Mice Injected With Organisms Cultured From Mouse Malignant Tissues”. Growth, 38:507-517.

source of quote

Axl, Una, I was just wondering who added the Glover footnote (5) at the end of the main article? It should be deleted but I can't get into the reference editor at the moment to do so Ronsword 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the citation need to be removed? --Una Smith 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation doesn't need to be removed, but the statement: "This is very important, if true. We suppose the Cancer Society will give an opinion later on the reliability of the findings" is a POV and reflective of a personal opinion and should be removed Ronsword 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Glover

I deleted "Glover reported that the organism when subcultured, displayed a large degree of pleomorphism and exhibited filter-passing forms" because I don't see its relevance in the article. If someone can explain the relevance, put it back. Note that "filter-passing" suggests his results were contaminants! Filter-passing means the infectious agent is very small, ie, smaller than most bacteria. This needs more explanation. --Una Smith 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying Una Smith. Do note, this is what Glover reported.

Note, also, that many of the bacteria researchers cited throughout the article---including Livingston---have claimed their bacterial isolates do, in fact, exhibit filter-passing forms, citing "extreme pleomorphism" as the reason. In some of the published studies, bacterial isolates were passed through varying degrees of Millipore filtration and then subsequent cultures revealed a regrowth of larger bacterial isolates, confirmed by electron microscopy---according to the published studies. Does this sound far-fetched? I can see how it would, but this is what the bacteria researchers have reported finding. As you've said, we are looking for historical accuracy here, and this is what the record says.

If you feel strongly this should be left out, I'll defer to your, and other editors' judgements. However, I would suggest more clarification as a solution here to explain what the researchers mean by "filter-passing" as opposed to omitting what they have claimed for the record? What do you think? Ronsword 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The pleomorphism and filter-passing issues, separately or together, may or may not merit mention in the article. I know what these terms mean but, so far, I am not convinced of their relevance to this history. They seem like just one more stray thread to be snipped off. --Una Smith 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is, we have enough on our plate clarifying the cancer bacteria story/history, without opening yet another door/link? Ronsword 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, without opening doors, but then not entering the rooms beyond, and then leaving those doors open behind us. --Una Smith 01:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A student paper here explains the pleomorphism/filter-passing: rather than concede their cultures were contaminated, the researchers proposed an elaborate theory of Amazing Shrinking Microbes. --Una Smith 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I don't mind assisting with some of the in-line citation. With the most controversial aspects (such as "filter-passing"), it may be better to state that some researchers have claimed this while others dispute — with references to both camps. Axl 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Only reason mention was made of 'filter passing' was that Glover reported that, I think, in a 1926 paper studying rous chicken sarcoma. Also, Livingston conducted a study with RCA labs in the '50s were she cultured bacterial isolates from pure Rous sarcoma virus pre-examined for contamination. These were cultured after several days incubation and then verified via electron microscopy at RCA labs. I simply relate this to you as a point of interest. I have no problem excluding reference to 'filter passing'.

Of course it is better to cite the original scholarly work rather than a secondary source, but I have not read the original paper so it is not appropriate for me to cite it. I put in the website as a placeholder / prompt. Thanks for improving it, Ronsword. --Una Smith 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the suject of contrversy, I have 2 points I'd like to make if you please.

One, it is extremely important IMO that every statement in our article has a credible, reliable reference. I note that there have already been some references and inclusions linking with some very controversial sources/websites. For example, the original reference for Scottish researcher Russell was to Rense.com; I removed that link, as Rense is considered a fringe site (and my understanding was that personal website links, references, etc. should not be made on Wikipedia?). I thus put in the original 1890 Russel paper as a reference.

It's just such concerns that were being raised on Cancer Talk and issues we should try and be vigilant about here as much as possible, to create a sound, highly credible and respectable article. Do you all agree on this?

My second point: I frankly don't see the relevance of starting the cancer bacteria history with a paragraph describing "Koch's Postulates." The History section is not about Koch or about the origins of bacteria research, only about cancer bacteria research, and thus really bears no relevance to Koch or his protocols. That description diverts from the article itself. Now, if mention was made that "Dr. so and so performed Koch's Postulates" as relates to cancer bacteria, then a very brief description, or simply a highlight linking to the appropriate Wiki article describing Koch's Postulates would be fine. I think we should condense and trim the fat as much as possible. What do you think? Ronsword 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Koch's postulates are highly relevant to the history of this topic. I edited the article to make that clearer (I hope). --Una Smith 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How Una Smith? Please explain relevance. Ronsword 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. See article. --Una Smith 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No "ibids", please. They are a disaster in a collaborative editing project, because the link between the "ibid" cittion and the reference itself is entirely contextual. Please examine the code for the Glover (1930) citations, and you'll see one way to do it so that there is no breakage. --Una Smith 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do and thanks for the nice editing job. Can I take a little break now, as my eyes are crossed from staring at text the whole day? :-) Ronsword 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooper et al (2006)

As abstracted by Ronsword, Hooper et al (2006) report that they cultured and tried to DNA-identify bacteria from within and without tumors, and they tried not to contaminate the tumor specimen and culture media. But what about their sequencing? Did they do PCR? If so, did they discuss the very significant problem of contamination for which PCR is notorious; and what did they do to prove that their DNA sequencing results are real, not artefacts? Ronsword, I expect you are working from the article itself, not just its abstract. So you can answer some of these questions. Yes?

Also, this research does not address two key questions that would apply to any bacteria found in the tumor and surrounding tissues:

1. Did they arrive there before or after the tumor?
2. If they arrived before, did they cause the tumor?

--Una Smith 04:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Hooper was not to perform Koch's postulates or establish a cause-effect, but to first identify quantitative and qualitative differences in bacterial isolates between deep tissue tumor samples and surface tissues which were decontaminated) as a prerequisite for demonstrating "a role for bacteria in the development of oral cancer". Interestingly, Hooper et al did note small, but what they felt were important differences among the bacteria recovered. Additionally, they found "novel"...species either not previously characterized or without standing in the current nomenclature" a result that is consistent with Diller (see main article).

Standard culture techniques were used, and PCR analysis then employed to determine taxonomy. However, the investigators were primarily focused on paying "sufficient attention...to the elimination from any tissues tested of the microbes that occur naturally on the surfaces of the tumors" so my read is, this addresses one of the problems that have been reported with cancer bacteria---namely surface or culture contamination. Hooper: "A prerequisite of this was the development of a robust method for the elimination of surface microbial contamination from specimens of tumor tissue."

Commenting further on the secondary invader concept, Hooper says "the types of bacteria isolated and the fact that the composition of the deep tissue microflora was similar to, but less species rich than, the overlying mucosa tend to imply a local origin for the bacteria detected within the tumor (italics mine).

Hooper concludes: "The apparent differences between the microflora of the tumor and control tissues suggest a degree of bacterial specificity that merits further study....As evidence that bacteria are involved in the development of many different cancers increases, it is interesting to speculate that the species isolated from the tumor tissue may play a role in the carcinogenic process, a concept worthy of further investigation."

NOTE: An important sutdy to mention, especially given that Hooper et al. are not part of the "mycoplasma" or "H.pylori" debate.

Have a nice weekend. Ronsword 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Helicobacter

See relevant text here. --Una Smith 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, given that many say the role of H.pylori and cancer is "unquestionable" while "mycoplasma" remains only "theoretical". I'm not so sure the divide between the H.pylori-ca and mycoplasma-ca as far as their established oncogenic roles are that wide scientifically. But that still remains to be determined. Ronsword 15:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By its abstract, the paper cited is suggestive, but not conclusive. Anyway, lets remember a key precept of science: the best science is that which stands up to the most rigorous examination. So, Ronsword, it is in your interest as an advocate of the "cancer bacteria" story to seek out criticism and to be maximally rigorous in your own acceptance of evidence pro and con. And try to leave personalities out of it. --66.167.135.193 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more user 66.167.135.193. Though I hope the impression wasn't created that the above abstract was being presented as a conclusion? I meant to include it to show that very preliminary results are emerging with respect to cancer bacteria and contamination/possible causation issues. Hence the study conclusion that "more research" is needed, yes?

Further your advice and comments, well taken, let me also point out something that I think sometimes gets overlooked re: 'the cancer bacteria story'.

Nonwithstanding the importance of rigorous science, there is also a historical side to the cancer bacteria story---and that's an aspect that also needs to be told, as we are trying to do here. Some of the scientific studies quoted may be relevant and others old and not so relevant, but still, the story is a part of medical history and needs to be told. Ultimately and whatever the outcome of the science, it will inevitably reach a consensus one way or another. You are very correct in asserting, however, that rigorous science not be confused with subjective opinions or personal interpretations re:cancer bacteria; Ronsword 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Helicobacter pylori page I rewrote the section on cancer links, and on its talk page I proposed to move most of the section to cancer bacteria. --Una Smith 04:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than wait on consensus from the H.pylori page about moving it over here, why not just enter as much information on H.pylori/cancer here as you see fit? I'm not so sure it has to be 'either' over there or over here Ronsword 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because asking first is the polite thing to do, and because maintaining the same topic on two pages pretty much guarantees a POV fork. --Una Smith 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"In some cases it can cause stomach cancer[1][2] and MALT lymphoma[3]."

Change to: "In some cases, it is believed to cause stomach cancer[1][2] and MALT lymphoma[3]." What do you think? Ronsword 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll edit it. --Una Smith 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

HCG Edit

"Livingston believed that HCG was a common denominator linking cancer and bacteria, and alleged that cancer tissues utilize HCG for the purpose of avoiding immunosurveilance, basing her ideas on data suggesting the human embryo uses HCG in the same fashion[33]. "

I would like to add a few sentences/references here to several modern studies in the fields of reproductive medicine which suggest that HCG may, in fact, protect the embryo from the immune system via several modes, one including T-cell apoptosis.

This newer science is relevant to Livingston's older claim because she stated that HCG's protection of the cancer cell was similar as its protection of the embryo; in fact, this was a cornerstone of her cancer bacteria theory which I failed to mention in the article.

Feedback? Ronsword 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tangent, not highly relevant to this page. I suggest if you want to write about this theory, then start another page about it. Float the idea also on the HCG tumor marker talk page, and on the pages about each of the specific tumors that secrete HCG. To write well about this, you are going to need a lot of technical help. --Una Smith 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

another vote on cancer link

In a few weeks, I will post a request for another vote (re:CANCER TALK) on whether a link between CANCER and CANCER BACTERIA should be established, now that the cancer bacteria article has been up and all have had a chance to read it (some were neutral pending the article). Ronsword 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Koch's postulates

Could someone who has read the relevant papers on Helicobacter etc write short statements on how well the research on these satisfies Koch's postulates? --Una Smith 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1