Comments on: Why I am Nominating Luc Montagnier for an IgNobel Prize http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:47:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Alan Henness http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-15995 Alan Henness Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:49:56 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-15995 Even if it was shielded by mu-metal, the answer is no, that would not be sufficient. Anyway, are there measurements for the shielding effectiveness in the paper? If not, why not? This is pretty basic stuff. Even if it was shielded by mu-metal, the answer is no, that would not be sufficient. Anyway, are there measurements for the shielding effectiveness in the paper? If not, why not? This is pretty basic stuff.

]]> By: Feltz http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-15994 Feltz Sat, 08 Oct 2011 20:58:25 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-15994 ...so i came across this article from Jan 2011: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Montagnier.pdf and this recorded discussion on LaRouchePAC: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17802 it seems to me that some of the credibility issues adressed by the sceptics in this discussion are resolved by a more indepth description of the procedures and apparatus employed in these experiments. I wonder if I could get the sceptics' reactions to this material. Also; I find it important that neither Montagnier, nor the author of the article claim that the electromagnetic waves which were recorded from the seemingly sterile filtrates and water have no phisical source. At one point during the discussion in the video, Laurence Hecht actually suggests the source of this EMF might simply be too small for us to see. Surely lady and gentlemen critics you do not propose that we can now discern the presence of the smallest of particles in existance. No so long ago, you probably would have dismissed the existance of bacteria as nonsense. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was met with disbelief by the scientific community and the church upon making public his dicovery of microorganisms. He did this using "proprietery equipment" (much like Montagnier, for which he was criticised by black duck) - a microscope lens which was created by a special method known only to van Leeuwenhoek himself. (it was just recently reproduced) Personally I believe Luc Montagnier's research has merit and that he might one day be called the father of wave biology or nonparticle biology. Much like van Leeuwenhoek (who was not even a real scientist by the standards of his contemporaries) is the father of microbiology. I really don't understand why it is so hard to believe that DNA molecules have a wave aspect - wouldn't this be in conjuction w/ quantum physics? As someone here mentioned, a certain number of Nobel Prize winners for science, including Albert Einstein turned towards unorthodox research towards the end of their careers (the Nobel sickness, or sthg to that effect). I believe this correlation comes simply from the fact that great minds are usually open minds. Nearly every great discovery has met with closed minded scepticism from "mid level scientists". This is exactly what happened with cold fusion in 1989. Now there is alot of funding for research into it again and breakthroughs are being made. I am saving this page on my HDD. Hopefully in a decade or so, when Montagnier's lab in China makes a couple of breakthroughs i will be able to publish it somewhere and people can have some laughs reading Black Duck's uppity criticism of one of the most interesting discoveries in the history of biology. …so i came across this article from Jan 2011: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Montagnier.pdf

and this recorded discussion on LaRouchePAC: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17802

it seems to me that some of the credibility issues adressed by the sceptics in this discussion are resolved by a more indepth description of the procedures and apparatus employed in these experiments. I wonder if I could get the sceptics’ reactions to this material.

Also; I find it important that neither Montagnier, nor the author of the article claim that the electromagnetic waves which were recorded from the seemingly sterile filtrates and water have no phisical source. At one point during the discussion in the video, Laurence Hecht actually suggests the source of this EMF might simply be too small for us to see. Surely lady and gentlemen critics you do not propose that we can now discern the presence of the smallest of particles in existance. No so long ago, you probably would have dismissed the existance of bacteria as nonsense.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was met with disbelief by the scientific community and the church upon making public his dicovery of microorganisms. He did this using “proprietery equipment” (much like Montagnier, for which he was criticised by black duck) – a microscope lens which was created by a special method known only to van Leeuwenhoek himself. (it was just recently reproduced)

Personally I believe Luc Montagnier’s research has merit and that he might one day be called the father of wave biology or nonparticle biology. Much like van Leeuwenhoek (who was not even a real scientist by the standards of his contemporaries) is the father of microbiology. I really don’t understand why it is so hard to believe that DNA molecules have a wave aspect – wouldn’t this be in conjuction w/ quantum physics?

As someone here mentioned, a certain number of Nobel Prize winners for science, including Albert Einstein turned towards unorthodox research towards the end of their careers (the Nobel sickness, or sthg to that effect). I believe this correlation comes simply from the fact that great minds are usually open minds. Nearly every great discovery has met with closed minded scepticism from “mid level scientists”. This is exactly what happened with cold fusion in 1989. Now there is alot of funding for research into it again and breakthroughs are being made.

I am saving this page on my HDD. Hopefully in a decade or so, when Montagnier’s lab in China makes a couple of breakthroughs i will be able to publish it somewhere and people can have some laughs reading Black Duck’s uppity criticism of one of the most interesting discoveries in the history of biology.

]]> By: Feltz http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-15992 Feltz Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:34:19 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-15992 It was shielded by mu-metal. Would that do it? Please read the "godam" thing before you blast it :) It was shielded by mu-metal. Would that do it?

Please read the “godam” thing before you blast it :)

]]> By: Luc colpisce ancora « Oggi Scienza http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-15241 Luc colpisce ancora « Oggi Scienza Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:24:57 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-15241 [...] in grado di confermare i risultati sia una specie sarchiapone meccanico del quale Montagnier sta tentando, con scarsi risultati, di ottenere il [...] [...] in grado di confermare i risultati sia una specie sarchiapone meccanico del quale Montagnier sta tentando, con scarsi risultati, di ottenere il [...]

]]> By: Wayne’s World of Homeopathy « Nucella's Blog http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-15133 Wayne’s World of Homeopathy « Nucella's Blog Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:07:04 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-15133 [...] as respected scientists. Andy Lewis describes his work, and its considerable shortcomings, in the Quackometer. Nonetheless, homeopaths seized upon his work as the justification they [...] [...] as respected scientists. Andy Lewis describes his work, and its considerable shortcomings, in the Quackometer. Nonetheless, homeopaths seized upon his work as the justification they [...]

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-14724 Le Canard Noir Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:28:32 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-14724 See <a href='http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/04/turn-on-tune-in-quack.html' rel="nofollow">http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/04/turn-on-tune-in-quack.html</a> See http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/04/turn-on-tune-in-quack.html

]]> By: M http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-14723 M Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:24:56 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-14723 I came across this article in Wired, "Bacteria on the Radio: DNA Could Act as Antenna". Could you please explain your viewpoint at the moment? I came across this article in Wired, “Bacteria on the Radio: DNA Could Act as Antenna”. Could you please explain your viewpoint at the moment?

]]> By: Turn On, Tune In, Quack | The Quackometer http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-14717 Turn On, Tune In, Quack | The Quackometer Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:45:57 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-14717 [...] over a phone line and the Montagnier paper claims that he could teleport DNA using equipment suspiciously similar to [...] [...] over a phone line and the Montagnier paper claims that he could teleport DNA using equipment suspiciously similar to [...]

]]> By: Luc Montagnier’s Porridge Pill Cure for AIDS | The Quackometer http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-14601 Luc Montagnier’s Porridge Pill Cure for AIDS | The Quackometer Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:46:01 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-14601 [...] a quarter of a century ago on the discovery of the HIV virus. However, he has recently been making bizarre pronouncements about how he believes he can teleport DNA through a homeopathic-like process. Homeopaths have [...] [...] a quarter of a century ago on the discovery of the HIV virus. However, he has recently been making bizarre pronouncements about how he believes he can teleport DNA through a homeopathic-like process. Homeopaths have [...]

]]> By: Mark http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html#comment-14281 Mark Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:50:04 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for-an-ignobel-prize.html#comment-14281 This is like Einstein declaring late in life that he is an astrologer. I think that like Pauling, Montagnier's belief in the power of his own prejudices has led him into a trap that lesser minds (and egos) easily avoid. That is the "charitable" view. The colder assesment is that he may be getting senile. This is like Einstein declaring late in life that he is an astrologer. I think that like Pauling, Montagnier’s belief in the power of his own prejudices has led him into a trap that lesser minds (and egos) easily avoid. That is the “charitable” view.

The colder assesment is that he may be getting senile.

]]>