Talk:Helminthic therapy

Many thanks for the great edits

Thanks for everyone's contributions to the page. i am really new to this and the way it is now is much better that what i did, although I am working on a major revision offline right now with a friend.

You asked about how common the use of helminthic therapy is, citing your allergies. Ovamed has a pretty active discussion board on their web site and Yahoo has two groups titled Helminthic therapy in one form or another. I think the common revulsion for intestinal worms means the therapy is less commonly used than one would expect given how effective it appears. I actually "cured" my asthma and seasonal allergies and mild irritable bowel all with hookworm infection by Autoimmune Therapies.

I also know of one other of their patients who cured, or more correctly, put into remission his exercise induced bronchospasm and is experiencing a great improvement in his psoriasis using their therapy (hookworms).

If you read the boards for Asthma, Crohn's, Colitis, etc., you will find the occasional post from mostly Ovamed patients, they seem to have been around longest. Most report very positive results, except for cost.

thanks again.

FQ1513 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidance/Mentor

Hi, am relatively new to Wikipedia and am looking for someone to guide me in improving this page. I am happy to do the work. I want a mentor so that I can make this page as well-constructed and written, as authoritative and as complete as possible.

I have many more references I could add for instance, but don't want to festoon the page with too many. I am also wondering about the structure and organization of the page. For instance is there a way to located the greatest examples of the wiki, I could then just emulate the way that the page is organized, referenced, etc.

Thanks and sorry for being lame.

FQ1513 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "Featured article" (FA) is used to describe the best Wiki content, and you can see a list of medical FAs (for example, Treatment of multiple sclerosis) at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology_and_medicine. I would also recommend reading through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). I wouldn't worry so much about finding a mentor if I were you -- most people can succeed in this environment as long as they read, understand, and consent to Wikipedia:Five pillars. But if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask, either here or on my talk page. --Arcadian (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

extract secretions as drug

Why can't you just analyze whatever is secreted by the parasite, and make that into a drug in itself? --131.215.166.4 (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like more of a pain in the ass than simply using the actual worms, no? But that is the goal of the current research. CalumetandHecla (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the parasite is not secreting something, the effectiveness is caused by the immune system's reaction to the parasite's presence.--HarryHenryGebel (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is the hypothesis anyway. The anonymous contributor's question would make an interesting test of the hypothesis discussed here. Rangek (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and the key here is of course to solve the problem, not to prove that curious and fun treatments like purposefully taking worms can solve serious problems (it's not about "worms' rights" issue after all). Have a look here (http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/6/4265) for the details looking at the role that filarial cystatin plays in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.184.68 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are peptides prepared from some worms and I believe they're used in a similar fashion to helminthic therapy (I'm not 100% sure about this, because it's extremely difficult to find information). However it is very hard to find more information about this therapy, let alone to find the therapeutics. I haven't been successful. Renowned CFS/ME expert Paul Cheney has mentioned the use of "earth dragon peptides" as a very effective treatment, but there seems to be no information about them on the web. DiamonDie (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good and sensible question. What's crucial to bear in mind is that the gut is a phenomenally complex beast, and the biochemical relationships between living parasites and microorganisms in the gut are, at best, poorly understood. It may be a combination of several compounds, which themselves may be released facultatively depending on the host's reaction to a. those compounds and b. the physical presence of the helminths in the gut. If we think of helminth therapy as a big black box that seems to work (better than anything else), while it's surely worth refining that solution to whatever extent it can be, it behooves us to to recall just how complex the biological and chemical is in reality.

NPOV

I have placed a NPOV tag on the article. I think it altogether balanced towards the promotion of this unapproved therapy. We do need some actual reference that it is unapproved, and if possible why. DGG (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The treatment is experimental and so undergoing clinical trials which have been officially approved. I have added a sentence and citation to this effect. Is there some other NPOV issue? I'm not seeing it myself and so we need some actionable specifics, please. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to be resolved so I'm removing the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Helminths if therapeutic must be symbionts, not parasites

I changed their categorization to symbionts which is correct, parasites are a form of symbiont, and further believe they should be mutualist as both organism gains a benefit from the relationship. Therefore, they are not parasites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.9.12 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Helminths as parasites or mutualists?

Hi, I recently published an article on helminthic therapy elsewhere and was taken to task by someone for my characterization of helminths used therapeutically as parasites. His assertion was that they were symbionts, of which parasite is a class, and not parasites but commensal or mutualist.

In reading the Wikipedia entry for Symbionts I learned that he was right, so I came back here to correct what I believe is an error in labeling helminths used in therapy as parasites and my effort to change it was rolled back with the argument that helminths are commonly viewed as parasites.

Rather than get into a rollback war I went to the individual's talk page to make the case but could not get them to agree although I remain convinced that this change is correct.

Any thoughts out there? Please refer to the Symbiont page here on Wikipedia to understand the difference between the classes of symbiont I am talking about amongst which are parasites, mutualists, commensals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FQ1513 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are technically correct, however, until this therapy is 1. proved, and 2. widely accepted, calling helminths anything other than parasites will be misleading and will appear that such discussions are advocacy rather than unbiased information.

That said, it would make sense, I think, to include a paragraph in this entry which clarifies that CERTAIN helminths may need to be reclassified as having a commensal or symbiotic relationship with their human hosts. This is not at all uncommon for different species in a group to be beneficial, benign, or deadly depending on the species in question (think bacteria, plants, mushrooms, etc)

Is Necator americanus approaching a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with humans? - this research article from "Trends in Parasitology" claims that Necator americanus might be approaching a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with humans --OmegaGX (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical explanation of helminthic therapy

So you guys refer to "beneficial parasites" in this section. If the 'parasite' benefits the host, it isn't a parasite, right? I'm gonna come back and change this in a week or so if no one objects. Universalss (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. Helminths are parasites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up Parasites, a class of Symbionts here on wikipedia. Hookworm are quite obviously mutualist symbionts, not parasitic symbionts. The change should be made here, or the definition on the Symbiont page for parasites should be changed. I vote we change the references to hookworm being parasites to mutualistic symbionts, that is what they are. The facts support this change. FQ1513 (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I recall that we've already had this discussion on my talk page. Helminths are parasites. Don't get your facts from Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is confusing and seems to contradict the prior sentence: "However, the observation that allergies and autoimmune response are increasing at a similar rate in the industrialized nations, appears to undermine the Hygiene Hypothesis."93.173.73.17 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Necator americanus approaching a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with humans? - this research article from "Trends in Parasitology" claims that Necator americanus might be approaching a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with humans --OmegaGX (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Helminthic therapy vs. the hygiene hypothesis

This Helminthic Therapy (HT) entry suffers from linking itself to the so-called hygiene hypothesis (HH) and its warmed-over revisions. HH is a loosely constructed, often unsupported, and generally unscientific collection of stories and theories, most of which can not be falsified or otherwise tested. They may want to claim HTs as one of their own, as the HH is lacking in good examples to shore up their theory, and in fact they've done so here on wikipedia and elsewhere.

The history of helminthic therapies, as I understand them arose from observations of correlations between helminths and allergies within one small cultural group, not as a result of looking a broad epidemiological patterns (as what generated the hygiene hypothesis). Moreover, I don't think there is any reasonable way to take the mechanisms of HT and to reasonably suppose that indigenous humans would be able to manage just the right number of hookworms or other parasites in their gut, such that autoimmune disorders would be rare or absent. This is where the HH takes us, so both the origins and predictions of the two theories are divergent. In any case, the theory behind HT is far clearer and makes specific testable predictions. The fact that there are many published peer-reviewed papers on HT and on-going double-blind clinical trials testing its predictions suggests strongly that as a theory, it is now far more robust and productive than the HH has ever been, and therefore should endeavor to steer clear of it's loosey-goosey-ness.

Helminthic therapy vs. Alternative Medicine

The same argument about the hygiene hypothesis holds for associating helminthic therapies with complementary and alternative medicine (or CAM). There is nothing alternative about using helminths in this manner, rather this linkage between parasites in the gut and immune system modulation is simply a new discovery which is being rapidly and rigorously tested in many scientific clinical trials around the world. It may be that while this research is being carried out, access to treatment outside these trials will remain only available from non-standard sources, but this is always the case when patients want a new drug or remedy prior to its approval by the various powers that be. If this were a form of CAM, then it would 1. be something available on the shelves of your local health food store with all the other supplements, tinctures, and holistic remedies, and 2. there would be no clinical trials underway. Moreover, if these ongoing trials fail to show meaningful results, you can be sure people will, for the most part, stop talking about purposefully ingesting worms or parasite ova - that is, the test results will have consequences for the future use of the therapy. The same can NOT be said for most CAMs, which repeatedly fail to generate measurable treatment effects, yet people keep selling them and others keep buying them. In the end, efforts by the CAM proponents to claim helminthic therapies as one of their own is not surprising and should be spurned as early and often as possible, so as not to be tainted by the same brush.

References and more information

Where do we include the link to the yahoo board that has a huge wealth of information as it has a few hundred users, most of whom have tried helminthic therapy? Also, where do we put the links to the latest research about Helminthic Therapy from reputable medical journals such as http://www.ijcb.co.in/april2010issueofijcb/109-110.pdf and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856386/pdf/136.pdf Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaGX (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't look at the other links yet but the first to the Yahoo board is not a reliable source and doesn't belong in the article. HTH. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/helminthictherapy/files/ << this link contains copies of research studies from reputable scientific journals regarding this therapy. Please review them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaGX (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A yahoo group is not a reliable source in any shape or form. Please review WP:MEDRS. If the group contains research studies, then those studies can be added themselves. The second link you give is not suitable since it does not appear to be pubmed indexed, and the third one is already in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

News

For the Good of the Gut: Can Parasitic Worms Treat Autoimmune Diseases? Dec 2010. reports TSO used to control symptoms of ulcerative colitis. Rod57 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but just a case study. More importantly, we should probably discuss PMID 15825065 in more depth in the article - it is actually a placebo controlled trial (the only one that has been done, AFAIK) and it gave a positive result. I was under the impression that no placebo controlled trials had been done. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When did it start?

Important part of an encyclopedic article, no? how did it start, and who started it? (And yes, worms have been around for a long time, but they didn't publish) Midgley (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

2016 review article, NYTM article

Main problem with this entry is that it doesn't have any recent articles, and in particular doesn't have any recent clinical articles. Here's the first one I found in my PubMed search, and it's free full text:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27172808

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May 10. pii: S1198-743X(16)30121-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.04.024.
Parasitic helminth infections and the control of human allergic and autoimmune disorders.
Maizels RM.
Abstract. The profile of global health today presents a striking reciprocal distribution between parasitic diseases in many of the world's lower-income countries, and ever-increasing levels of inflammatory disorders such as allergy, autoimmunity and inflammatory bowel diseases in the more affluent societies. Attention is particularly focused on helminth worm parasites, which are associated with protection from allergy and inflammation in both epidemiologic and laboratory settings. One mechanistic explanation of this is that helminths drive the regulatory arm of the immune system, abrogating the ability of the host to expel the parasites, while also dampening reactivity to many bystander specificities. Interest has therefore heightened into whether helminth parasites, or their products, hold therapeutic potential for immunologic disorders of the developed world. In this narrative review, progress across a range of trials is discussed, together with prospects for isolating individual molecular mediators from helminths that may offer defined new therapies for inflammatory conditions.

PMID: 27172808
Free full text
http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X%2816%2930121-5/abstract

I came to this page because of the article in the New York Times magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/magazine/the-parasite-underground.html
The Parasite Underground: A shadow network of patients are trying to treat their own debilitating diseases — by infecting themselves with gastrointestinal worms.
By MOISES VELASQUEZ-MANOFF
JUNE 16, 2016

This article raises the old debate about WP:MEDRS. This is definitely a WP:RS, and (based my own reading of the immunology literature) it seems to frame the debate well and is reasonably accurate. (Significantly, the author tried it himself and found a small, temporary effect on his own autoimmune disease, which is a good assessment of the kind of results they're getting.) This NYTM article is better written, and probably explains the subject better, than any Wikipedia editor here could ever do. It also reports on research that is more current than this present WP article. This entry needs a rewrite based on the current evidence. I suggest that we provisionally cite the NYTM article, and use this as a framework to explain the current research. Anyone who disagrees can look up the research that Veasqiez-Manoff refers to and provide proper WP:MEDRS citations in its place, and then we can consider removing the citation to his article.--Nbauman (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, as per WP:MEDRS we should be using review articles. The Maizels review looks good. We should definitely be mentioning that the only two placebo controlled trials (for Crohn's) have both failed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:MEDRS says that "ideal sources" include review articles. It doesn't totally exclude popular articles. They can be included for example with the "laysummary=" tag. It looks as if Velasquez-Manoff used Maizels as one of his sources.

Are you volunteering to track down all the literature citations for the claims made in the Velasquez-Manoff article, cite them and rewrite them into a summary as easy to understand as the NYTM article? If so, I look forward to it.--Nbauman (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

We should only be using lay sources for non-medical claims. Using the NY Times article to say something like "lots of people are trying this" is fine. But we shouldn't be using it for medical claims. If you look at the article it implies that the treatment might work, whereas the clinical trials so far show that it has no effect. That is why wikipedia relies on reviews...relying on the NY times for medical claims in this instance would obviously be highly NPOV. So yes, we definitely should be tracking down the reviews and using those instead! --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The NYT article implies the treatment might work. The Clin Microbiol Infect article also implies the treatment might work. The objective truth is, it might work and it might not, and we won't know at least until well-designed randomized, controlled trials are done. Some clinical trials found an effect, some clinical trials did not. Given the different diseases, varieties of helminths, and the complexity of the immune system, that's what you could expect even from an effective treatment. I don't see anything in that NYT article that contradicts the peer-reviewed literature. Do you? --Nbauman (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helminthic therapy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718040120/http://whilesciencesleeps.com/references/pdf/344 to http://whilesciencesleeps.com/references/pdf/344

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

new article

https://aeon.co/essays/gut-worms-were-once-a-cause-of-disease-now-they-are-a-cure

If someone wants to work it into the article, go ahead. Keith Henson (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)