March
16
The Forgotten Cure: Chapters 5-8
- Having a state health system in Russia during the 1940s-1950s led Russia to experience less freedom in the healthcare system. Due to the heavily controlled access to medicine that the people of the USSR faced, antibiotics were hard to come by during the time period. There was a considerably less amount of antibiotics available in the USSR in comparison to the United States. While the West did aid in the introduction of antibiotics to the USSR during World War II, their contributions were halted after the end of the war. This greatly slowed the strides that the USSR was making towards manufacturing proper antibiotics for consumption by the population. The state health system led to a lack of resources being allocated to the study of antibiotics during the time, which reduced the number of antibiotics available to the common population. Instead, herbs and more natural remedies were offered, and the absence of antibiotics paved the way for bacteriophage therapy to be more commonly used in the USSR.
- Out of the three main organizations discussed in the novel, the Eliava Institute, the Phage Therapy Center, and the Hirszfeld Institute, there are somewhat different outcomes of each organization that have allowed for the differentiation between them. The Eliava Institute and the Hirszfeld Institute were both organizations that were impacted by the Russian government. The quote provided by Hirszfeld was given as a result of the struggles and tragedy that the family had to endure as a result of World War II and their struggles in Poland. The two organizations are similar in their struggles but greatly differ from the Phage Therapy Center. The Phage Therapy Center did not endure obstacles to the same degree as the Eliava Institute or the Hirszfeld Institute and it focused more on the treatment of patients. The Eliava Institute focused more on the research behind bacteriophages and their use.
- Merril’s experiment utilized lambda phage and infected the blood of mice with it. After seven hours of infection, the surviving bacteriophage was isolated and reinjected into the bloodstream. This process was repeated eight times to allow for phages that lasted longer to be present in the bloodstream. Two phages called Argo1 and Argo2 were deemed to be the two phages present at the end of the rounds of serial passaging. Mice with E. coli were treated with Argo1 and Argo2, as well as W60, or lambda phage, in the experiment. The results were compared against a control group that received no phage therapy. The control group had a lower survival rate than those treated with phage therapy. The figures in the article showed that those treated with Argo1 and Argo2 showed significantly fewer symptoms of disease in comparison to the W60 group or the control group.
- Despite the promising results that phage therapy has brought, antibiotics still seem to be the prevalent use of treatment today. More experimentation must be done on phage therapy before it can be widely accepted for use by others and the FDA. It appears as if phage therapy has been tested on a smaller scale, but few experiments have occurred on a large scale, which is needed in order to make strides towards more frequent use. In order to ensure safety for the public, more clinical trials must be performed as well as experimenting on what mixtures of phages are best for use for the differing diseases. There are undoubtedly unique circumstances that occur where one specific phage is needed, however developing a mixture of phages to combat the more common diseases would be beneficial for the general public. The company GangaGen recognizes the need for increased use in phage therapy and is working to treat infectious diseases that have a high level of antibiotic resistance. GangaGen is looking into combating multiple species of bacteria that are harmful to humans, and with enough published and accepted experimentation, the company, as well as others, may change the public outlook on phage therapy in the future.
Emily, I agree with your interesting suggestions in your post related to adoption of phage therapy and GangaGen. I agree that more experiments have to be conducted on a larger scale to establish the validity of phage therapy. Exploring the idea of data analysis may help to supplement the clinical trials which can enhance or complement larger scale experiments. With the use of modern data technologies, details of all experiments, small or big, can be collected related to both phage and antibiotic treatments, and data analysis can be used to conduct deeper studies.
I agree with your statement about the FDA approving phage therapy to cause it to be more mainstream. The necessity for more testing is imperative because other drugs, like painkillers, need to go through years and years of testing in order to be approved for production and usage in not only hospitals but in everyday life. I think that phage therapy in the United States is looked at in fear because it seems unpredictable because it hasn’t been tested as thoroughly as other forms of medicine.