Talk:Koch's postulates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Koch's postulates is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Older comments[edit]

Note:

I am currently away from my reference books at my home and will fix the above text as soon as I am able.

User:Lloy0076

Postulates[edit]

The postulates are wrong. All say the exact opposite of what Koch proposed. Comments written below that complain of confusion have merit. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.216.254 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. Does the second postulate say that the pathogen must be able to be grown in a a pure culture, or this this merely a step before postulate 3? Also, my biology textbook thinks that postulate 4 continues with the two cultures being shown to be identical. Any advice from knowledgeable persons is much appreciated! Thanks. -- postglock 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is some information here regarding the example of leprosy not being able to be grown in a pure culture. I am still unsure of the implications though. I suppose it suggests Koch's postulates are just that, postulates with exemptions, not laws? -- postglock 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

they are postulates, not laws. I have updated the article with a little more information, as there are always exceptions to rules... --Grcampbell 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There are multiple variants of the postulates on the Internet, some more coherent than others. Which is the original? Here is one sample:

  1. The organism must be found in all animals suffering from the disease but not in healthy animals.
  2. The organism must be isolated from a diseased animal and grown in pure culture.
  3. The cultured organism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy animal.
  4. The organism must be isolated again from the animal into which it was introduced.

Could someone who has Koch's 1890 paper please check this for us? --Una Smith 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got access to the paper, but it's not translated and Ich spreche Deutsch nicht so gut. MastCell Talk 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, without translating, does the paper match the German wikipedia version of Koch's (1890) postulates? How about we get a translation of their "modern" postulates? --Una Smith 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In Inventing the Aids Virus (1996), German author Peter Duesberg writes that in 1884 Koch published a paper on tuberculosis that “spelled out the key criteria for proving a microbe guilty of causing a disease." Duesberg states them in English as follows:
"First, the germ must be found growing abundantly [my italics] in every patient and every diseased tissue.
Second, the germ must be isolated and grown in the laboratory.
Third, the purified germ must cause the disease again in another host.”
If asymptomatic carriers don't have the germ in abundance then the postulates hold for them too. Although I'm not a scientist, I suspect this is indeed the case.
Regarding cholera, Duesberg writes that Koch isolated the correct bacterium, but couldn't induce the disease in test animals, and so used statistical correlations as proof instead of laboratory results. Duesberg theorizes that Koch used animals that had been vaccinated by natural infection. Presumably natural infection results in vaccination in many animals and people, thus making them asymptomatic carriers. Scientists have since induced cholera in unimmunized animals, Duesberg writes. Eye.earth 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter Duesberg's view of the postulates should be interpreted cautiously, given his agenda, particularly as his application of them is well outside the medical mainstream. MastCell Talk 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rephrase that by replacing cautiously with strictly. Eye.earth 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll rephrase it thus: Duesberg's views should be given the same amount of weight on Wikipedia as they are given by the expert scientific community. Which is to say none. MastCell Talk 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very confused in trying to reference these postulates. The article maintains that they are formulated in 1890, but there is no 1890 paper in the reference section. Further, the first citation for the 1876 paper seems to contain the postulates in the section concerning methods and techniques. I do not speak German well enough to confirm this. Is the 1890 date incorrect, and where is the 1890 paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.4.149 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears this section is being adjusted to oppose Duesberg rather than to provide information on Koch's postulates.Nukeh (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been "adjusted", in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, to avoid giving undue weight to a fringe view which is already covered in great detail elsewhere on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why an HPC plus HIV contaminated needle stick is treated as an HPC stick? Duesberg's "weight", as you cite above is not "none". Weight = 0, is a mathematical / physics concept. If you mean Duesberg is wrong, you might be right. But that is not for us to decide as editors. I still assert that a discussion of Duesberg and HIV=AIDS has no place behind an article on Koch's postulates. This indicates a biased agenga to fix-up Koch for referencing from other articles in WP.Nukeh (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm entirely unclear on what you're arguing or suggesting. Duesberg is not mentioned in this article. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that state of affairs? MastCell Talk 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An authoritative English translation of the relevant portion of Koch's 1884 paper is available in "Milestones in Microbiology: 1546 to 1940", translated and edited by Thomas D. Brock. American Society for Microbiology Press, 1999ISBN13: 978-1-55581-142-6 Accessible on Google Books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdalbey (talkcontribs) 03:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I've changed the text (see history) to say he abandoned the second part of the fiorst postulate. I.E. the organism must still be in all affected animals, but not neccesari;y absent in healthy one. Rich Farmbrough 23:18 3 March 2006 (UTC).

References[edit]

This is a stray, I don't know where it belongs. --Una Smith 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Koch R. Über die Ätiologie der Tuberkulose. In: "Verhandlungen des Kongresses für Innere Medizin. Erster Kongress, Wiesbaden 1882".

Bias[edit]

This article appears to have been adjusted such that anyone investigating HIV=AIDS theories would find nothing here for support. Nukeh (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Then it would be accurate. MastCell Talk 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that Koch's postulates (today) are the same as Koch's postulates (when he wrote) from the proper historical perspective? Or do you mean that anyone who believes there is the very slightest question as to whether HIV = AIDS would find nothing here? If the latter is what you mean to imply, then why do Duesberg's views get mentioned on this article's discussion pages? If Koch's postulates change over time, then I suggest we disambiguate into the historic Koch's postulates (this article) and place modern modifications of Koch elsewhere.

Please try to follow this analogy: If one changes a single note in a Mozart piece, it is no longer Mozart. As one changes a large number of his notes in a musical piece, the work becomes substantialy different to the point that it might be considered a new work. The same would hold true in mathematics, where, in fact, changing a single 'note' is probably an error. Biology is not as solid as mathematics except in the historical perspective, where historians (editors like us) do not change the original work, whether it is right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talkcontribs) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Nukeh (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) neat bot! Nukeh (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for discussion of concrete and specific improvements to this article. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest in that regard. AIDS denialism is a fringe view which is already given more than its due weight on Wikipedia in the articles dedicated to it; it really has no place here. MastCell Talk 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The name "Duesberg" is on this discussion page more frequently than "Koch", and I agree that Duesberg is a fringe view, but he has more than his due weight here.Nukeh (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That this talk page is a magnet for AIDS denialism is unfortunate. However, WP:WEIGHT is determined by proportionate acceptance of a view by experts in the relevant field, not by the number of mentions of a concept on a Wikipedia talk page (God forbid!) MastCell Talk 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doubts about authors[edit]

The article says the authors are Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler. I read somewhere Friedrich Henle. Wich is correct? Henle was Koch student. Khullah (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Diseases[edit]

What are Koch's Postulates?[edit]

HIV fulfillment of the postulates[edit]

My last edit was to show that the footnoted source finds three postulates sufficient to prove causation. Thus it is in agreement with its sentence: ... fulfillment of all four postulates is no longer required to demonstrate causality. Operative67 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)