Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:History of virology

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of virology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Years in Introduction

I want to see the discoveries in more historical context, particularly in the introduction. For example, take these two sentences: Beijerinck maintained that viruses were liquid in nature, a theory later discredited by the American biochemist and virologist Wendell Meredith Stanley (1904–1971), who proved that they were in fact, particles.[3] In the same year Friedrich Loeffler (1852–1915) and Paul Frosch (1860–1928) passed the first animal virus through a similar filter and discovered the cause of foot-and-mouth disease. "In that same year…"? What year would that be? All I have are the birth and death years of the scientists. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph, which is not in the Introduction, begins "In 1898,....". I have repeated the year (1898) for clarity.Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Andreas Rosenberger: virology trace origin

I recently came across an article in Scientific American from 18-Mar-1882 that may be a trace origin pertaining to the history of virology. I briefly added this, but it was reverted by veteran editor. I believe this warrants further discussion to be included in this page.

This is the article:

"The Transformation of Bacteria"
The transformation of the innocent bacteria usually found in healthy organisms into the specific forms associated with certain more or less malignant diseases is something quite unexpected and altogether contrary to prevailing theories; yet the experiments lately made by Dr. Rosenberger, at Wuerzburg, strongly indicate that such may sometimes be the case.
Dr. Rosenberger's experiments were begun to determine the cause of death of an animal poisoned with a septicemic virus, which had been heated so as to destroy all the bacteria in it. The prevailing belief is that cooked virus is simply a poison, and that the injection of it into the blood of a healthy animal kills as strychnine does, as a poison, not as an infection. To decide this question septic blood and serum were heated, filtered, evaporated, and then injected. The animals died with all the symptoms and pathological appearances of septicemic, just as if uncooked virus had been used. The only effect of the cooking was to lessen the virulence of the poison, which, however, was redeveloped in the blood of the animals poisoned. To insure the killing of all the micro-organisms in the cooked virus, the virus was exposed to a temperature of 140 C for two hours, and that this temperature was sufficient to sterilize the liquid was proved by the inaction of it (the cooked virus) in culture liquids.
The inference from Dr. Rosenberger's observations is, as pointed out by the Lancet, that the application of a degree of heat which apparently sterilizes effectually a septicemic virus, so far as artificial cultivation of the organism is concerned, does not prevent the virus from producing in the animal body its specific form of septicemic and of septic bacteria. From these facts the startling conclusion is drawn that the bacteria are not primary but secondary elements in the morbid process, and that their development is associated with a chemical or at least unorganized poison; a poison, however, which the bacteria are the means, and the only means, of multiplying in the animal body. Since these septic bacteria are not contained in the cooked virus when it is injected, the question arises: How then do they come to be in the poisoned animal, which was previously without them?
Dr. Rosenberger holds that they arise from the non-specific bacteria already in the organism; in other words, that under certain conditions bacteria may radically change their nature, so that from being harmless they become virulently malignant. This conclusion is in harmony with the results of Buchner's observations, which seemed, though not conclusively, to show that the bacillus of anthrax might be developed from a non-specific fungus found in (h y); and also with the observations of Rossbach in connection with the physiological action of papayotin, a chemical ferment of vegetable origin, which, when injected into the blood of a perfectly healthy animal causes such a multiplication of bacteria as to produce effects comparable with those of a true infection.
If these observations are sustained by further experiments in this direction, the current theories with regard to the origin of certain specific diseases by infection, always and exclusively, will have to be materially modified; and the position maintained by many intelligent physicians is retired places, that specific diseases like typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and the like, do sometimes originate where the theory of infection is untenable, will be abundantly justified"

Scientific American, 18-Mar-1882, pp 160 https://books.google.com/books?id=zoE9AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=rosenberger&f=false
SloppyTots (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the inclusion of this. It contravenes WP:NOR in that there are no secondary sources on the history of virology that acknowledge Rosenberger as a pioneer in the field. The Scientific American article is from 1882 when the word "virus" only meant a toxin or poison and not viruses, which were discovered many years later. If reliable secondary sources, such as modern text books or review articles can be found and cited to support the inclusion of Rosenberger in the article, then bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT, perhaps a sentence or two will be warranted. This applies to any other articles in which Rosenberger has been added in this context. Graham Beards (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American is a secondary source, but agree a recent history of virology literature source is needed despite the obvious. Older literature is always neglected and discarded as obsolete, so it might take some time to find historical aspect that actually did a deep dive. I see you have already reverted the add from the Virology page noting "Not True". Its a case of Citation Needed. Regards,SloppyTots (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life science

Who was the first person who studed viruses 41.150.241.238 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martinus Beijerinck Graham Beards (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_virology