小中大
PLoS Pathogens上关于纳米细菌的一篇综述，有意思的是下面的东西。
Another obstacle to the equitable assessment of the evidence is the fact that its main contributors have—legitimately—started a diagnostics and pharmaceutical business enterprise, and their papers do not always state their business connections.
Kajander himself recently admitted that the bacterial status of NB is still lacking satisfactory evidence, and he concedes that the term “calcifying nanoparticle” best describes the agent [38]; unfortunately, he also still uses the untenable word “nanobacteria”, which landed him in a microbial minefield, as an editorial had rightly foreseen [39].
It is also a fact that nothing has been done to identify or to characterize it, or them; nowhere have we found that NB have been “isolated”, and we know that in the mid-1800s, the revolutionary germ theory of disease would not have been accepted without the cumbersome methods set up by Pasteur for obtaining pure cultures, and it would not have gained impetus without the isolating cultures on the solid media of Koch.
Nanobacteria: Facts or Fancies?
cuturl('http://pathogens.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.ppat.0030055')
