# Has another Nobel Laureate gone off the deap end? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 14, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548 "2011-01-14T01:56:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/1 "2011-01-14T01:56:35Z")
I’mtalking about Luc Montagnier, the guy that first isolated HIV. He recently “published” this [load of crap](http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166) that seems to claim that the information from DNA can be teleported from one place to another. Is there any reasonable explanation for this other than the guy is a binaries scam artist? Can I expect him to be endorsing HIV curing magnets anytime soon? ---
**Author:** ![spenczar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/858c86/32.png) [@spenczar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spenczar)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/2 "2011-01-14T02:37:12Z")
I’m not sure I see where it’s talking about “teleportation.” It’s referring to possible resonance of DNA molecules through very-low-frequency electromagnetic waves in water. Doesn’t sound totally crazy to me. I think his claims get pretty extraordinary towards the end there, and his Quantum Field theory “explanation” leaves a lot to be desired, but I’m not convinced its utter crap. It’s just moderate crap. ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/3 "2011-01-14T02:37:22Z")
What’s a “binaries scam artist”? ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/4 "2011-01-14T02:45:40Z")
That depends on where exactly the end of a deap is located. ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/5 "2011-01-14T02:47:28Z")
I’d say Kary Mullis, but he went off the deep end well before he won the Nobel. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/6 "2011-01-14T03:00:57Z")
> [@Noel\_Prosequi](#): > > What’s a “binaries scam artist”? Sorry. That’s the iPhone autocheck replacing words for me. Vi can’t remember what the intended word was, so just ignore " binaries". > [@spenczar](#): > > spenczar I’m not sure I see where it’s talking about “teleportation.” It’s referring to possible resonance of DNA molecules through very-low-frequency electromagnetic waves in water. Doesn’t sound totally crazy to me. > > I think his claims get pretty extraordinary towards the end there, and his Quantum Field theory “explanation” leaves a lot to be desired, but I’m not convinced its utter crap. It’s just moderate crap. If I’m reading that correctly, he’s claiming that the molecules are transmitting their DNA code through EM fields, then these molecules are being reproduced in a different sample. It’s close enough to teleportation for me. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/7 "2011-01-14T03:50:49Z")
You didn’t even read the paper, did you? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/8 "2011-01-14T04:12:28Z")
I haven’t concentrated on it for any length of time, if that’s what you mean. I was hoping to get some insight here. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/9 "2011-01-14T04:42:49Z")
Your o.p. has grossly misrepresented the content of the paper. As for the claims and experimental procedures in the paper, there is not adequate detail to perform a peer review, nor does it appear that anyone in this thread is qualified to do so. This entire thread does not belong in **General Questions** at all, insofar as you have not asked a legitimate question nor provided evidence that you understand the content of the paper, much less have reason to question the authors or their work. I recommend that you ask the moderators to close this thread, go back and thoroughly read the paper in question, and then ask a more informed and insightful series of questions about the specific claims made therein. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/10 "2011-01-14T05:42:37Z")
Chill, dude. For what it’s worth, I’m a molecular biologist and this looks pretty crazy to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/11 "2011-01-14T06:00:23Z")
No time to read it tonight but if the EM waves are teleporting DNA, the synopsis really undersells the paper. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/12 "2011-01-14T06:20:52Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > I haven’t concentrated on it for any length of time, if that’s what you mean. I was hoping to get some insight here. Hang on, I’m going to send you the answer to your question right now. \ There. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/13 "2011-01-14T08:32:38Z")
Here’s an interesting article from someone who does know what he’s talking about: [Has Luc Montagnier Lost It?](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/01/10/has_luc_montagnier_lost_it.php) > [@](#): > > Virologist Luc Montagnier has announced that he’s heading off to Shanghai, to found an institute and investigate. . .mysterious electromagnetic signals from extremely diluted pathogens. > > [snip] > > That’s because this whole homeopathy/high dilution/water signature business isn’t just another wild new idea that might or might not pan out. Even if it were that, this would be tricky stuff - any of the edge-of-detection phenomena are. But this area is a known swamp full of quicksand (and inhabited by various strange swamp creatures) which has claimed careers before. There are huge sunken deposits of quackery and self-delusion to be found out there, and before you announce you’re digging up something valuable, you’ll have to be very sure that you’re not just dedging up more of the same swampy stuff. So he doesn’t come to any firm conclusions, but he does note that this is not only bizarre stuff with very little evidence behind it, it’s in a field just _full_ of very experienced professional con artists. He quotes from something I don’t have access to: > [@](#): > > What we have found is that DNA produces structural changes in water, which persist at very high dilutions, and which lead to resonant electromagnetic signals that we can measure. > > [snip] > > High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10 to the minus 18th dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10 to the minus 18th, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal. OK, class, what does that remind you of? It reminds _me_ of the elderly Pauling, chugging vitamin C. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/14 "2011-01-14T15:34:00Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > Chill, dude. > > For what it’s worth, I’m a molecular biologist and this looks pretty crazy to me. It certainly is far and away from any conventional, accepted thinking on molecular biophysics, and also probably a casual violation of the central dogma of molecular biology. It is not, however, “teleportation” nor does it cite any mechanisms that violate the principles of physics as we know it. The o.p., without elucidating any clear or specific criticisms of the hypothesis or work as presented struck out immediately at Montagnier’s character and reputation, accusing him of having “gone off the deep end,” being a “binaries scam artist,” (whatever that is) and anticipating that he will next be “endorsing HIV curing magnets”; all of this without demonstrating a clear understanding of the claims of the paper or if so, grossly misrepresenting the content and claims of the paper. The claims made within the paper are pretty radical, and I am dubious of the excitation of simple organisms in alignment of Schumann modes of the Earth’s magnetic field. However, I’ll point out that Nobel Prizes in the sciences are awarded for paradigm-changing theories and discoveries, many of which are initially ridiculed for being radical departures from conventional thought. The o.p. doesn’t address whether the claims made within the paper are reasonable, well-supported by theory or experiment, or otherwise worthy of further consideration; he simply embarks upon a brief series of _ad hominem_ attacks with no substance whatsoever, which are as dishonest as they are offensive to free intellect. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/15 "2011-01-14T19:08:29Z")
No **Stranger** , the question was whether or not this particular Nobel Laureate has gone off the deep end. I certainly make it clear that I think that he has, but the OP is very clearly stated to be whether or not my conclusions are correct. Since, I had only skimmed the article, I was going to come back and suggest that you are right, and I should come back to the thread later. However, I was having some difficulty sleeping last night, so took the time to look it over again. I have come to the conclusion, that you, **Stranger** , are entirely wrong about my misrepresentation of this paper. They are taking highly diluted samples of DNA fragments and placing them next to a sample of pure water in a 7 Hz electromagnetic field. They are then running PCR on this “pure water” and successfully amplifying the DNA in the original flask from the “pure water”. That is to say, the complex information from the original flask is being transmitted into the pure water through a 7 Hz em field. Perhaps you want a stricter definition of teleportation. Mea culpa, after Googling around, I see quackologists refer to this as bioscalar waves. As for the qualifications of people on this board, if I wanted qualifications, I would go to a reliable source rather than the internet. I wouldn’t trust anybodies stated qualifications on the internet, and find it pretty funny when people think that its necessary to state their qualifications in order to give more weight to their opinion. What the good people on this board are very good at, however, is pointing out what I may be missing. I do appreciate your opinions of my critic of this work however wrong I think they are. Even if this does eventually become Nobel Prize winning material, I’m still right to consider it quackery. Science does not work by accepting every crazy idea just because it may be possible. With such ground breaking research, it should be heavily reviewed and researched. This paper isn’t even reviewable and it’s published outside of any review that I can track at all. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/16 "2011-01-14T19:15:03Z")
Let me try this analogy. IMO this is like some well respected world renowned field biologist has just declared they are opening a Big Foot Research Foundation. Sure, Big Feets might be remotely possible. Super Biologist might have some interesting (to him) evidence even. But, lets face it, it is certainly going to set off any reasonable persons Woo Woo meter, like the OP’s for instance and hence the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/17 "2011-01-14T19:41:27Z")
Simple rule of thumb, for which I’ve yet to find an exception: Anyone who invokes quantum field theories to explain anything, who has not had extensive background in both physics generally and QFT specifically (and even sometimes with that background) is either deluded or is trying to delude others. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/18 "2011-01-14T19:48:23Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > No **Stranger** , the question was whether or not this particular Nobel Laureate has gone off the deep end. I certainly make it clear that I think that he has, but the OP is very clearly stated to be whether or not my conclusions are correct. Oh, I see. So you know Luc Montagnier personally and are concerned about his mental state? :rolleyes: The o.p. was stated in terms that were prejudicial and semantically undermining e.g. referring to “teleportation” with no actual question about the content or validity of his claims whatsoever. It was a monumentally dishonest way to address valid criticism of the hypothesis forwarded in the paper by attacking the author rather than any questions about the claims. I would agree that the claims within are extraordinary and the theoretical rationale and experimental verification presented are not at a level adequate to accept the hypothesis as credible and falsifiable. That doesn’t make Montagnier a “scam artist” as labeled by the o.p. If this is the level of intellectual discourse that is judged suitable for **General Questions** I’ll withdrawal from the thread and limit myself to forums where invective is not presented as valid criticism. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba8739/32.png) [@Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slightly_mad_scientist)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/19 "2011-01-14T19:48:42Z")
This looks like someone desperately trying to prove homeopathy, this makes me very sceptical from the start. The paper is not peer-reviewed, also not a good sign if you’re claiming something that contradicts everything we know. As far as I understand it from the paper they are not claiming that they teleported the DNA, but that they transferred an imprint of the DNA to the other tube. This imprint is supposed to behave similarly enough that they could do a PCR with it and recover the original DNA. This may not be strictly teleportation, but it still is seriously crazy, a 100bp long DNA is a pretty complicated molecule, there is no mechanism by which pure water could imitate such a molecule faithfully enough to allow for PCR to be successful. The much simpler explanation for that is contamination of the “pure” water. PCR is an extremely sensitive method, contamination is a very common problem. Between rewriting physics and sloppy lab procedure I’d say the latter is much, much more likely. ---
**Author:** ![Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba8739/32.png) [@Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slightly_mad_scientist)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548/20 "2011-01-14T20:02:12Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I would agree that the claims within are extraordinary and the theoretical rationale and experimental verification presented are not at a level adequate to accept the hypothesis as credible and falsifiable. That doesn’t make Montagnier a “scam artist” as labeled by the o.p. > Stranger I’d like to submit some more information relevant for the question whether Montagnier might be a scam artist. He planned to perform a small, badly designed study on 12 autistic children, testing for a scientifically not sufficiently plausible theory, and charging the parents for that ([Cite](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/luc_montagnier_the_nobel_disease_strikes.php)). That is for me sufficient basis to think that he is either deluding himself or scamming those people. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-another-nobel-laureate-gone-off-the-deap-end/567548.md?page=2)