Nanobacteria Discovered?

mfh writes "The BBC is reporting that a new form of life has been discovered, nanobacteria, which was previously only theorized by Finnish researchers Kajander and Ciftcioglu. A team lead by Dr John Lieske of the Mayo Clinic claims they have found irrefutable evidence of the existence of nanobacteria, which is likely responsible for a plethora of illnesses."

Comments

More Info on Kajander's Site

[bcolflesh]

http://www.uku.fi/~kajander/

Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[alanw]

New Scientist has a longer article, which goes into more details of the politics between rival teams of scientists.

See also the article by John Cisar (a sceptic) An alternative interpretation of nanobacteria-induced biomineralization

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[cluckshot]

Actually the problem with publishing certain medical discoveries in the "Standard Outlets" is that they are "Standard Outlets." The discovery that stomach ulcers were bacteria caused was so contraversial that the MD who discovered it was nearly cashiered out of the profession. The fact of his ability to treat them effectively had no account. The fact that he had cultured H-Pilori had no account and got him no standing in the standard outlet journals for medicine.

I have worked Heart Transplant Unit as RN. We knew early as 1992 that the causes of heart disease were Viral and Bacterial (Several causes). We also knew that Cholesterol had nothing to do with the problem.

The presence of Homcystine an indicator of cellular destruction was a key indicator but not diagnostic because of other sources of destroyed cells.

The arterial plaquing associated with heart disease is bacterial plaquing similar to that of tooth plaques caused by various bacteria most prominant of which is Hemolytic Strep A. What happens is during your life, you get an infection somewhere. Most likely it is in your gums. This infection seeds germs into the blood which find cavitation points in the body to hide out where the normal immune factors of the blood have a hard time getting to them. There they set up plaques to hold on and to defend themselves from the body. They grow essentially in stasis (very slowly) blooming out when the body defenses are weakened or the body oxygen level drops or the blood sugar level gets too high. These blooms are frequently the events people know as heart attack and stroke.

It would be no surprise that some other agents such as a "Nano-Bacteria" were at the root of this stuff. I would suspect though that these are actually agents of control that are seeded out of the larger bacteria to control the host. Bacteria do this sort of thing a lot.

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[InternationalCow]

Well, occasionally the standard outlets do have it wrong. Most of the times they just adhere to stringent standards of scientific correctness. Sometimes that is a disadvantage but it spares us from having to suffer through junk science most of the time. I would also like to politely disagree with you on the central role that bacteria play in atherosclerosis. Cholesterol has a lot to do with it, if you look at what happens to people suffering from congenital hypercholesterolemia. They die from atherosclerosis. Homocysteine is not there as a consequence of bacterial infestation but because of hyperhomocysteinemia, a rather common metabolic defect. There is currently no proof for a central role of bacterial/viral infection in atherosclerosis. There is also no proof to the contrary, but if you read your science philosophy you will realize that does not mean that your hypothesis is correct.

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[TykeClone]

Floss, release those germs into your bloodstream, then die.

Seriously though, I have a heart murmur and am required to take a good shot of penicillin before visiting the dentist for that very concern.

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[benzapp]

Cholesterol has a lot to do with it, if you look at what happens to people suffering from congenital hypercholesterolemia.

I think you should preface that with lipoproteins that are low density, due to the cholesterol being oxidized by heat.

Cholesterol is one of the most necessary substances in your body, particularly the brain where lipoproteins are the largest component after water.

Lets not forget there is 10 times as much cholesterol in human breast milk than protein, and that low blood levels of cholesterol is one of the few (and possibily the only) predictor of suicidal depression.

This is actually a critical flaw in the modern medical establishment, particular in regards to cholesterol being given to infants. Not a single infant formula contains cholesterol, despite the copious amounts of the stuff in human milk. It is no wonder formula fed infants are dumber than average, the growth of their brain is severely restricted due to serious dietary deficiencies.

Cholesterol that is undamaged by heat or any other energy source is necessary for human survival, and is not at all dangerous.

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[lukesl]

Actually the problem with publishing certain medical discoveries in the "Standard Outlets" is that they are "Standard Outlets." The discovery that stomach ulcers were bacteria caused was so contraversial that the MD who discovered it was nearly cashiered out of the profession. The fact of his ability to treat them effectively had no account. The fact that he had cultured H-Pilori had no account and got him no standing in the standard outlet journals for medicine.

The flaw in your reasoning is the idea that the viability of nanobacteria is as easy to prove/falsify as the assertion that bacterium X causes disease Y. Medical science is driven by dogma, politics, etc. much more than basic science, as medical scientists have to deal with things that are harder to prove. The guy who figured out that H. pylori causes ulcers couldn't get anyone to listen because he couldn't perform the simple study to prove it, namely putting a bunch of people in cages and infecting them (or giving placebo), then waiting to see if they got ulcers. It wasn't until he drank a culture of the bugs himself and got an ulcer that anyone listened.

On the other hand, if someone is making an extremely simple claim, like "these things in this tube are alive," there are extremely simple ways to test that. The fact that something "replicates" is certainly not convincing evidence for life, only for some sort of chemical reaction. It might be a really really interesting chemical reaction, but if someone "grows" a bunch of these nanobugs, but then can't isolate DNA from them, you have to be really suspicious, because isolating DNA from anything is a trivial procedure.

Oh, BTW, what you're saying about heart disease is BS. You're confusing endocarditis with atherosclerosis, and in neither case are arterial plaques in any similar to dental plaque. IAAMDPHD.

Re:Sceptical articles on nanobacteria

[benzapp]

No, people do not need to consume cholesterol. Your body makes all the cholesterol it can ever use.

Provide your source. your body also makes Vitamins B1, B3, and B6 but you will be deficient if you do not eat enough of it. Further, that ability exists in infants from the moment they are born. Why would the need to consume cholesterol only apply to infants, in stark contradiction to many other vitamins and hormones including those I just mentioned? Or do you think cholesterol is in mother's milk out of some freak coincidence?

Cholesterol is only available from animal sources. If humans needed cholesterol to survive, strict vegetarians (vegans) would be dropping dead left and right.

The vast majority of vegans do not remain that way for extended periods of time. Further, when they do binge it is often on dairy products that contain substantial amounts of cholesterol. Cholesterol is used by your body to produce lipoproteins which comprise cell membranes. All cellular growth thus requires cholesterol. Where do vegans have major problems? Reproduction and muscle growth. The number of cases of low birth weight and spontaneous abortion are quite high amongst vegans. All the medical evidence clearly indicates veganism is dangerous.

Correlation is one thing. Causation is another.

Well, you must have a PhD in statistics! Thank you so much for that enlightening knowledge. Perhaps you are unaware, but the whole of medical knowledge is based on theories and the use of statistics to support them. causation, on the micro level, is almost impossible to prove. Science today is entirely based on probability.

Its good that you are taking an interest in your health and your diet. But learn nutrition from books and journals -- not from magazines, newspapers, and TV.

Ahh yes, can you name one newspaper article or television show that discusses anything I just mentioned, specially the points you selectively challenged and that I will shortly dismiss with numerous references to journals? No, I didn't think so. Fortunately for you, I actual DO read medical journals, and not just bullshit on slashdot. Have fun reading, of course you won't however... as this completely conflicts with your preconceived notions of proper diet (no serious student of medicine would give any credit to veganism)

The following citations can be found on the National Library of Medicine

low blood levels of cholesterol are linked with decreased immunity
(1)Weverling-Rijnsburger, A.W. et al, Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet 1997 / 350 (9085) / 1119-1123. ,

(2)Forette ,B. et al, Cholesterol as risk factor for mortality in elderly women. Lancet 1989 / 1 (8643) / 868-870.

(3)Isles, C.G. et al, Plasma cholesterol, coronary heart disease, and cancer in the Renfrew and Paisley survey. Brit. Med. J. 1989 / 298 (6678) / 920-924.

(4)Rose, G. & M.J. Shipley, Plasma lipids and mortality : a source of error. Lancet 1980 / 1 (8167) / 523-526.

Low blood levels of cholesterol impair brain and liver function

(1)Xu, G. et al, Relationship between abnormal cholesterol synthesis and retarded learning in rats. Metabolism 1998 / 47 (7) / 878-882.

(2)Schoknecht, P.A. et al, Dietary cholesterol supplementation improves growth and behavioural response of pigs selected for genetically high and low serum cholesterol. Nutr.1994 / 124 (2) / pag.305-314.

(3)Hague, Z.U. et al, Importance of dietary cholesterol for the maturation of mouse brain myelin. Biosc. Biotech. Biochem. 1992 / 56 (8) / 1351-1354.

low cholesterol is associated with severe pathological behavior

(1)Golomb BA, et al, Low cholesterol and violent crime. J Psychiatr Res 2000 Jul-Oct;34(4-5):301-9.

(2)Hillbrand M, et al, Serum cholesterol concentrations and mood states in violent psychiat

Photo Album

[$exyNerdie]

Nanobacteria Photo Gallery

RTFA

[Alomex]

r John Lieske of the Mayo Clinic claims they have found irrefutable evidence of the existence of nanobacteria.

They do not claim such a thing. They claim to have found potential evidence of the existence of nanobacteria. Alternate explanations of the evidence have already been given (false positive DNA test, for one).

potential != irrefutable

Journal Impact Factors

[nucal]

For one, it is telling that this "breakthrough" has appeared in a low-impact journal.

You really pressed one of my buttons here. Did you actually read the article and judge for youself or did you just assume that it was lousy based on the ISI impact factor? By the way the impact factor for the the journal in question, American Journal of Physiology, is in the "mid-range" (~3-4), but not horrible (there are journals with impact factors less than 1). In fact, the whole idea of impact factors is pretty controversial and has been abused as a criterion for promotions, grant awards, etc.

There's plenty of bullshit published in the "so-called" top tier journals (Science, Nature, Cell, etc.) and plenty of excellent science published in what you are calling a low-impact journal.

Also, the group working on nanobacteria had to revise their work seven times - this is an unheard of level of skepticism and suggests that there is an unusual level of politics going on here.

Re:Difference Between Nanobacteria and Prions?

[J'raxis]

I think these nanobacteria are just smaller than bacteria (and larger than viruses), not actually smaller than prions, which still hold the title as the smallest.

• Bacteria - full-size living organisms with DNA and organelles and everything.
• Nanobacteria - really tiny versions of the above.
• Viruses - strands of protein and RNA.
• Prions - individual protein molecules.

Re:Difference Between Nanobacteria and Prions?

[the gnat]

I think these nanobacteria are just smaller than bacteria (and larger than viruses), not actually smaller than prions, which still hold the title as the smallest.

Prions are organic infectious agents, but they're not "life" under any standard, and they're also nothing more than corrupted versions of proteins already in the cell. Their replication is a trick of physical chemistry, not a true reproductive process, not even comparable to a virus's hijacking of the cell's machinery. Prions are really more like oncogenic proteins, except with transmissibility.

Viruses are actually more complicated that "strands of protein and RNA"; some have relatively large genomes (~40 proteins) and a fairly intricate structure. Bacteriophages in particular have a wicked-looking protein casing. They're still not life, though, as they don't reproduce on their own and don't metabolize energy. (I think they're also one of the great mysteries of evolution, as well.)