Talk:Carcinogenic bacteria

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelsenia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving to carcinogenic bacteria
Anyone mind a new title for this page? II | (t - c) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This would create unnecessary complications IMV. The entire 'cancer bacteria' debate/discussion has traditionally been referenced as such (i.e. as "cancer bacteria" and not as "carcinogens"); also, the literature typically references bacteria for their potential "oncogenic" role---and not usually for a 'carcinogenic' one. Carcinogens, on the other hand, are usually cited as factors in environmentally-related cancers so I think the two are really not compatible. (Not to mention that links now established in separate articles to this article under the header of "cancer bacteria" would all have to be rewritten). (Ronsword (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC))


 * It doesn't matter that much to me. I just noticed that this review uses the word carcinogenesis quite a bit in referring to the effects of the bacteria, but never flat out out calls them carcinogenic. However, it is better to keep this page broad ... the paper also discusses diagnostic and preventative bacteria. II  | (t - c) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, II, the paper you refer to was mentioned in recent discussion in the main cancer article; many view this (and other such journals) as low level and not having the impact or significance of, say, a JAMA. This doesn't necessarily reflect my own view as the article you cite---whatever its hosts' standing---can serve as a springboard for further discussion provided there's enough open mindedness to do so. As I'm sure you know, the article in question lists many references to other professional journals from which such discussion can be carried further. (Ronsword (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Revision of first paragraph
I'm proposing a change to the first paragraph in which bacteria are regarded as possibly being "opportunistic" and as being the result of, rather than a cause of some cancers.

The suspicion of cancer bacteria as primarily 'opportunists' has long been the accepted scientific viewpoint of their role, if any, in cancer. However, the current wave of research that's been highlighting H.pylori and the possible role of other bacterial species in oncogenesis (and which forms the main thrust of this article) is meant to offer newer evidence ---a fresher perspective, if you will---beyond the decades old argument of 'opportunism'.

Thus to start this article by reiterating an old argument (i.e. opportunism) undermines, unnecssarily, the article's thrust in my view. In effect, this article is not about opportunism, but about evidence suggesting an oncogenic role of bacteria beyond the old argument of opportunism.

I'm not against mentioning the possibility of opportunism, but I'd like to place less emphasis on it as a competing idea with what's being presented in this article. For example, the lead paragraph might read something like: "while cancer bacteria have long been considered as opportunists which infect tissues after the disease process has commenced, recent evidence is suggesting that some species of bacteria may actually be directly involved in oncogenesis. The strongest evidence to date involves the bacterium H.pylori and its role in gastric cancer". Or something to that effect.

Any ideas/feedback are appreciated:-) (Ronsword (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

(BTW, here's the revision):


 * Cancer bacteria (not viruses) are infectious organisms which are known, or suspected of causing cancer. While cancer bacteria have long been considered opportunistic---infecting healthy tissues after cancer has already established itself---recent evidence is showing that some bacteria may be directly involved in oncogenesis. The strongest evidence to date involves the bacterium H.pylori and its role in gastric cancer.

History Revision
I think the following sentence should be deleted: "In 1990 the National Cancer Institute published a review of Livingston's theories, concluding that her methods of classifying the cancer bacterium contained "remarkable errors" and it was actually a case of misclassification - the bacteria was actually Staphylococcus epidermidis." This slants this article as a critique of Livingston---one already plainly delineated in the actual lead article on Virginia Livingston. Thus, the sentence is redundant and makes the article too centered on 'Virginia Livingston'. This article should be primarily focused on "cancer bacteria". Ronsword (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits looks good. Ronsword (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quacks
The article mentions researchers like Royal Rife a proponent of radionics, but no mention their work was criticized by medical experts for being quackery. Also Can Bacteria Cause Cancer? by David J. Hess is cited on the article, but there is criticism of this book What Is the Role of Bacteria In Cancer Carcinogenesis?, Hess's book is entirely unreliable as he supports the work of Gaston Naessens and other quacks and invokes conspiracy theories that the work of alternative cancer researchers has been 'suppressed' by mainstream doctors. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Reading and Writing in the Natural Sciences
— Assignment last updated by H2Oworks (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)