Talk:Luc Montagnier

message: In 2015, Montagnier published another article in the journal "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine", titled "Transduction of DNA information through water and electromagnetic waves".
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072
He seems to take his controversial idea one step further: By converting a digitzed file to electromagnetic signals, next to a tube of water, DNA is, according to the paper, kind of teleported. Such that TAQ Polymerase can "read" the template apparently from water – that has never seen the template DNA. 
Very strange indeed. Maybe a reference to this latest work could be added to the article, if relevant.
A free pre-print of the article is here: 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01620v1.pdf
92.225.251.205 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not wasting time with that paranoid conspiracy theory. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: Posted under the "Coronavirus pandemic" heading, towards the bottom of the page, on Luc Montagnier's Wiki-page:
"However, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted on May 11, 2021 that he is no longer convinced that the COVID-19 pandemic originated naturally. [50][improper synthesis?]"
"Reference:
 [50]"Why is Anthony Fauci hedging on the origins of the coronavirus?". Retrieved 25 May 2021."
If you read the transcript of the source, or watch and listen to the CNN news report, Fauci clearly states that he is not convinced...; Not that, "he is NO LONGER convinced", as it shows on Luc Montagnier's Wiki-page. This needs to be changed asap, as it insinuates that Fauci has had a change of position on the matter. OptimusComposite84 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be edited/deleted asap 

message: The Luc Montagnier Foundation is a spam page--linking to other spam sites.  I have no way to edit this.  Protected article?
Lmlmss44 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I could not read and removed it. This is hardly an encyclopedic content. Welcome to restore, but this should be mentioned only in a couple of phrases if at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal battle over patent about fake discovery

message: There is no proven evidence indicating the novel coronavirus is a man-made virus.[8][49]
There is "evidence", and/or there is "proof".  There is no such thing as "proven evidence".  It's stupid and tortured thing to say, when you refuse to say "There is no proof.", which leaves the door open to the possibility of evidence, and when you can't bring yourself to say "There is no evidence.", which there certainly is.  So, you juxtapose the two words together and create the nonsensical quality of "proven evidence" which "sort of" covers both bases for the low-IQ morons that don't know or care about knowing the difference between the two.107.195.106.201 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This was changed by someone who did not provide much of a reason why. The given sources state that "Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2." (Frutos et al.) or that "There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin." (Holmes et al.); so I've restored the pre-existing text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proven Evidence" 

message: FBI and Energy Department have made statements:
* https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=fbi+and+energy+department+sars-cov-2&ia=web
Mick2 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources mentioning him and his claims in this connection? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

text: * I believe there is consensus that he has made this claim in 2020. The issue is an editorial one: should Wikipedia label his hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" or not?  Given that Montagnier's statement was regarding the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2, and not regarding who did it. And given that his theory is now endorsed by the USA. 81.204.112.85 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *:We say what our reliable sources say. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you have any RS which contradict the FBI/energy department? --Mick2 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * See my comment above and answer it. Also see the edit summaries where I have reverted your edits. Resolve and respond to those issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

text: *We have reliable sources which describe the scientific consensus position, which are the WP:BESTSOURCES and how we decide what is "true" on wikipedia. These sources do not support Montagnier's position as vindicated. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2023 

message: I’ve removed the second of two paragraphs under: 
Controversies> COVID-19 Pandemic about Montagnier’s radio interview where he reportedly stated that vaccines were driving SARS-2 and evolution and Antibody Dependent Enhancement would cause the vaccines to exacerbate the severity of COVID cases.
I provide the text of the paragraph with the cite below in case someone wants to use it as a guide to look and see what WP:MEDRS sources say on this. I have taken it down bc, while this source, The Wire, India, is listed in WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, this individual article is not reliable as key arguments make no sense and, much more importantly, biomedical information, broadly construed, requires [WP:MEDRS]] sources.
The author of the article claims that Montagnier’s apparent statement on viral evolution being driven by vaccines is wrong because (1) only 6% of viral mutations are beneficial and (2) one of the variants of concern at the time was denominated as such bc it had evolved to a point where it could evade vaccine induced immunity but that since it was first spotted in India before vaccinates were given there, the strain’s evolution could not have been driven by vaccines. The problem with his arguments is the virus isn’t literally thinking about how to evade the vaccine and intentionally making changes to avoid it; as he acknowledges, mutations are random. Thus the vaccine can be seen as “driving” evolution even if it encounters a variant AFTER it’s mutated, when it can then create a situation where it can replicate like crazy.
Plus since there are staggering  numbers of mutations occurring, it thus doesn’t matter that only 6% are beneficial. 6% of a jillion is still a lot of evolved virus variants. 
Note, the cite did not have a link. Here is the article: https://science.thewire.in/health/luc-montagniers-views-on-covid-vaccines-are-latest-of-his-wrong-vexing-ideas/
“In a 2021 interview with French media group Hold Up, Montagnier claimed that the use of vaccinations for COVID was steering the evolution of new strains and that the process of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) would cause vaccinated individuals to suffer more strongly. The former claim has no obvious basis in fact, while ADE has only ever been conclusively demonstrated in a single example, secondary dengue virus infections. The statements were misattributed in social media posts by the RAIR Foundation USA, which claimed that Montagnier stated that anyone that had the vaccine would "die in two years." These claims gained widespread distribution on Twitter.“ JustinReilly (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That Montagnier made these claims isn't something that needs a MEDRS cite. Since the subject of this article is Montagnier not these claims or COVID, we can just briefly cite the mainstream viewpoint using WP:PARITY compliant sources. Nuking the paragraph was overkill. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Attributed claims from someone like Montagnier do not need MEDRS sources, this source is fine. Arguments about the validity of Montagnier's claims are completely irrelevant. What only matters is whether or not he said them. I've removed the "two years" comment as we need direct confirmation of Montagnier saying something in order for it to be included per BLP. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19 Pandemic: Vaccine-Driven Mutation and ADE 

message: The last sentence in the intro implies he lacks expertise in a field where he is an expert. Untrue statements regarding qualifications (or in this case, lack thereof) and slanderous gossip content are both inappropriate. Current content below in italics. Suggested revision noted with strike-through text.
Such a claim has been rejected by other virologists. He has been criticised by other academics for using his Nobel prize status to "spread dangerous health messages outside his field of knowledge". LauraWalton (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously denying the quote cited to the RS? (The letter read: “We, academics of medicine, cannot accept that one of our peers is using his Nobel prize [status] to spread dangerous health messages outside of his field of knowledge.”) Maybe the missing "of" (of his field) threw you off. I have fixed that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for addressing inappropriate bias 

message: this text says that Luc Montagnier promoted a conspiracy theory about COVID 19. I don't like the fact that people who disagreed with the way COVID 19 was handled were censored or ridiculed by the mainstream media, instead of allowing constructive debate. For this reason I no longer donate to Wikipedia. 109.52.5.124 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have known it for a long time. It is spelled out at WP:LUNATICS. It's old news. tgeorgescu (talk)  17:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the reason I will no longer donate to Wikipedia  

message: Lab-escape-denialism was fashionable (but wrong) in the first two years, but times have changed and it's terribly disingenuous to start the article portraying his opinions as false when today, lab-escape is a completely mainstream. I hope this situation gets fixed. Tallard (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read COVID-19 lab leak theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorrily needing updating