DNA molecule teleports itself into test tube by piratenews

Frankly I'm surprised this is getting the attention that it does. It's scientific nonsense, not because it's not possible, but because the experiment could not possibly have had this effect.

It would take some relatively radical nuclear physics, or a simple PCR with a wireless connection, but it ain't gonna happen by itself with a weak magnetic field. If it did, the integrity of not only DNA and lifeforms, but matter itself, would rapidly approach zero.

Much simpler solution: The clean water had trace elements of the bacteria. Simple, undetectable, and unavoidable in an experiment like this one.

It's not that his readings are wrong, but that his conclusions are scientific nonsense. You see this all the time, people saying that X caused Y when that's neither mathematically possible and often, as in this case, scientifically absurd.

Also, you can not only logically figure out what did happen, you can logically deduce that what he claims happens is impossible, because were it possible, it would have destroyed the universe, probably within seconds. The Nobel has clearly been handed out loosely for a while. It seems to show a lack of basic understanding of quantum mechanics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:57 AM

As a homeopathy consumer, I've been following Montagnier's research with serially diluted and succussed water for some time. It's very intriguing, but he needs to share his instrumentation so it can be replicated.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:14 AM

Very likely something got mislabeled or the machine sniffing for the DNA is itself contaminated.

EDIT: ah, you already covered the contamination possibility. Yep.

Bad lab work passing off as a revolutionary scientific discovery. People who are more careful might consider either dialing down the sensitivity of the machine and using a larger amount of the bacteria in the test sample, or use more vigorous sterilization methods for their test tubes. In any case, I doubt this will be reproduced, and the guy who claimed it will probably lose his job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
EDIT: ah, you already covered the contamination possibility. Yep.

The contamination explanation was addressed in the series of controlled experiments he did. That is, he did not find said "contamination" when there was no electric field.

That is why scientists have controls, so spurious events such as contamination can be ruled out. You don't think he thought of that?

Quote:
using a larger amount of the bacteria in the test sample,

The whole point of this series of experiments is to measure an electromagnetic "imprint" of DNA on water. This imprint only occurs (in his experiments) in extreme dilutions made just a certain way (serial dilutions with physical agitations). Montagnier is claiming to find a phenomena that can be observed only in extreme dilutions.

Quote:
or use more vigorous sterilization methods for their test tubes.

"The water content of each tube was filtered through 450 nm and 20 nm filters and diluted from 10−2 to 10−15." This water is pretty pure.

I am not sure you guys are understanding the experiment. The article did not explain it well.

He has 2 tubes. In one tube, he measures an EM signal corresponding to bacterial DNA. In the other tube, the measurement is zero. After 16-18 hours, with a 7hz field, he finds the EM signal in both tubes of water.

He hypothesizes that somehow the EM signal from the first test tube has imprinted itself into the water in the second test tube.

I don't know why everyone thinks this is absolutely impossible. Certainly, it is unheard of, but we know so little about EM in biology, there are many things that are unheard of in the EM field.

My problem with this is that all his experiments are done with an EM measuring device that he (plus colleagues) have invented. For all we know, his device is flawed or unreliable. His experiments are intriguing pilot studies, but until his instrumentation has been tested outside his lab and his results replicated by other labs, these studies have no scientific meaning.

In science, you simply cannot claim conclusions based on some instrument you just invented that has never been tested by other people.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:20 AM

Let me cut and paste the relevant section of the study:

Quote:
In further experiments a fragment of HIV DNA taken from its long terminal repeat (LTR) has
been used as the DNA source. This fragment was amplified by PCR (487 base pairs) and nested
PCR (104 base pairs) using specific primers. In a first step, DNA dilutions were made, in which
the production of EMS under the ambient electromagnetic background was detected. Then the
following steps were taken. As shown in Fig. 3, one of the positive dilutions (say 10−6) was placed in a container shielded by 1 mm thick layer of mu-metal (an alloy absorbing ultralow frequency waves). In its vicinity another tube containing pure water was placed. The water content of each tube was filtered through 450 nm and 20 nm filters and diluted from 10−2 to 10−15. A copper solenoid is placed around them and receives a low intensity electric current oscillating at 7 Hz, produced by an external generator. The produced magnetic field is maintained for 18 hours at room temperature. EMS are then recorded from each tube. Now also the tube containing water emits EMS, at the dilutions corresponding to those positive for EMS in the original DNA tube.

This result shows that, upon 7 Hz excitation, the transmission into pure water of the oscillation
of the nanostructures initially originated from DNA has been achieved.

The following controls were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:
- Time of exposure of the two tubes less than 16 − 18 hrs
- No coil
- Generator of magnetic field turned off
- Frequency of excitation < 7 Hz
- Absence of DNA in tube 1.

At this point the most critical step was undertaken, namely to investigate the specificity
of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence.

For this all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted
to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. The result was that a DNA band of the expected size
of the original LTR fragment was detected. It was further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98 % identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12) and was also repeated with another DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease. It was shown clearly that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:35 AM

Quote:
That is, he did not find said "contamination" when there was no electric field.

Well, correction, he didn't find it at the start of measurements with the electric field. Things could happen, mistakes with the samples used, poor sample preparation, a machine calibration issue, or, yes, they amplified DNA contamination that was already present in the supposed control tube at the start of the experiment.

I can actually think of a way this could happen, even including the water filtration mentioned. The water filtration doesn't matter if the test tube itself is contaminated. I'm sure they sterilized the glass, most likely with an autoclave, but the problem with sensitive equipment is you have to ask how sterile IS sterile.

Initial readings may have been zero, but depending on how the machine works and how much water was in the test tube, the machine is calibrated I'm sure to non-detect at some amount of impurities even in the "pure" filtered water. So there could be DNA residue in the water at the beginning of the experiment, but not enough to detect. Then if there was dry glass in the test tube with DNA contamination on it, and you put the glass in an electric field, DNA is on the glass going to migrate along the surface towards the polar charge (compare DNA electrophoresis). If that polar charge is towards the water, the DNA on the glass surface at the start of the experiment ends up in the water 7 hours later, and low and behold when you run a polymerase chain reaction you suddenly start reading DNA in the water at detectable levels.

Now according to quantum mechanics you might see electrons or other things transfer between closed environments, but this is really hard to measure, and it doesn't occur on the level where one could say entire strands of DNA have teleported or "imprinted" or whatever between the two vessels.

The problem here is that it's extremely unlikely the DNA can migrate from one closed environment to another closed environment nearby simply due to the presence of an EM field, it's "too big" to exhibit quantum mechanics-like effects. The much more likely explanation is they didn't decontaminate well enough or the machine is wonky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I want to see if I understand this correctly.

There is a tube with proteins in it, arranged into a DNA strand.

There is a tube with no proteins in it, just pure water.

After exposure to a magnetic field, the tube with pure water has proteins added to it.

These proteins assemble into the DNA strand found in the first tube.

Is that right?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:56 AM

Yes, the problem is PCR only works if there's DNA particles already in the water, it assembles DNA strands using some already present nucleotides. Which is why they're claiming some DNA teleported between the two vessels, but it's baloney, there's an easier and better and more logical explanation. And that explanation is: they screwed up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:59 AM

Anthony,

I am glad you asked, because it is confusing.

1. Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize winner for discovery of the HIV) amplifies a fragment of HIV DNA through a process called PCR. Basically, he makes tons of artificial copies of the DNA by adding a bunch of building block ingredients.

2. He puts these DNA copies into pure water, then dilutes the solution over and over again until there is no DNA left in the water. He filters both test tubes to 20 nanometers.

3. He puts this "DNA water" into Test Tube #1. He detects a specific electromagnetic (EM) signal using his EM Signal Machine that he invented.

4. He puts pure water into Test Tube #2. He detects no EM signal from TT#2.

5. He surrounds both test tubes with a coil that generates an EM field oscillating at 7 Hz for 16-18 hours.

6. He measures TT#2, which now emits the exact same specific EM signal as TT#1.

7. Into TT#2, he now adds all the building block ingredients for making artificial copies of DNA through PCR. Lo and behold, after the PCR process, he finds that the ingredients have been arranged into copies of the same DNA fragment he started out with in TT#1. They are 98% identical (only 2 nucleotides are different out of 104). He did this step 12 times, and all 12 times yielded the same results.

8. He tested this experiment under different conditions: with the coil but no magnetic field, without the coil at all, with less time, with a different frequency, with pure water vs pure water, etc. These observations occur only when the magnetic field of 7 hz is on for 16-18 hours. He was also able to replicate these observations for the Lyme bacterium.

9. He concludes that under these conditions, it may be possible DNA information (Note: it is the *information*, not the DNA itself) to be transferred from one test tube to the other via the EM field.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Which is why they're claiming some DNA teleported between the two vessels, ...

The PCWorld article claims this, not the author of the research.

You really need to read the original paper to understand what he did, and what he claimed.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
CTS: That is, he did not find said "contamination" when there was no electric field.
Well, correction, he didn't find it at the start of measurements with the electric field.

I don't see how that is a correction.

He didn't find it in TT#2 at the start of the EM field experiment. He also didn't find it in TT#2 at the start OR THE END in the experiment with no EM fields. He also didn't find it at the start and end of experiments in which the field was on for less than 16-18 hours, where the field was less than 7 hz, or where both test tubes were pure water. That is, he didn't find it in all the control experiments.

That is what controls in experiments are for: to rule out obviously confounders like contamination.

Quote:
After seven hours, things could happen,...

Sure. But one has to ask:

1. Why do these "things" only happen when the EM field is used?

2. Why should one automatically assume these patterned results are caused by such "things" as opposed to the EM field of the experiment?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:59 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's scientific nonsense, not because it's not possible, but because the experiment could not possibly have had this effect....
Also, you can not only logically figure out what did happen, you can logically deduce that what he claims happens is impossible, because were it possible, it would have destroyed the universe, probably within seconds. The Nobel has clearly been handed out loosely for a while. It seems to show a lack of basic understanding of quantum mechanics.

The actual paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166v1 “DNA waves and water” The paper has 6 authors, not just one nut, and they all used their real names.
The paper wasn't written to upset physics. The objective is to develop a sensitive test for the complete “eradication of HIV infection, so that it will not be necessary for patients to be treated for life by a combination of toxic and expensive drugs.”

“The process of launching clinical trials in West and South Africa to test new therapeutics is planned. Their efficacy will be monitored by this new test . . .” So, maybe somebody who is so certain that this paper is wrong! Wrong!! WRONG!!! should repeat the experiment and prove that fact? Lives can be saved. And arxiv.org will publish the resulting paper.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:18 AM

I fail to see what particular connection to curing HIV this experiment could have.

First of all, they were using bacteria and bacterial DNA.

Secondly, if they're researching ways to to detect on a very sensitive level an infection in vitro/in vivo, then a method which results in contamination apparently appearing in what was thought to be pure water doesn't sound like the way to go.

CTS: Why would you accept data just because it's from someone who is a nobel prize winner, when in any other situation contamination appearing in the pure water control test tube would be grounds for throwing OUT that same data?

Just because the times he did it with both pure water this didn't happen doesn't suggest that his methods when using pure water and DNA are somehow "good." Any other case, ANY other person, anyone who claimed they can make DNA molecules migrate from one test tube to a test tube with clean water using EM waves, and we'd be scoffing and laughing about cross-contamination. Hell, I *AM* scoffing and laughing about cross-contamination.

The emperor has no clothes. Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:38 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I fail to see what particular connection to curing HIV this experiment could have.

First of all, they were using bacteria and bacterial DNA.

Secondly, if they're researching ways to to detect on a very sensitive level an infection in vitro/in vivo, then a method which results in contamination apparently appearing in what was thought to be pure water doesn't sound like the way to go.

CTS: Why would you accept data just because it's from someone who is a nobel prize winner, when in any other situation contamination appearing in the pure water control test tube would be grounds for throwing OUT that same data?

Just because the times he did it with both pure water this didn't happen doesn't suggest that his methods when using pure water and DNA are somehow "good." Any other case, ANY other person, and we'd be scoffing and laughing about cross-contamination. Hell, I *AM* scoffing and laughing about cross-contamination.

The emperor has no clothes. Sorry.

The connection to HIV is in the original paper. And a much more entertaining reason to think the test is wrong is that they run the experiment overnight. An evil competitor could sabotage the experiment at midnight. That is probably a TV trope.

But these authors are willing to put their reputations on the line. If there is no experimental confirmation, these people will be shamed. It is too soon to start heaping scorn upon them - paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166v1 was published last month. If this is bogus, one day they will get the humiliation they deserve. Or else a prize because they did the work and took the risk of publishing.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
First of all, they were using bacteria and bacterial DNA.

Wow, you didn't read either the paper or anything I wrote, huh?

He used HIV DNA, then did it again with Lyme bacteria DNA.

Quote:
CTS: Why would you accept data

Sigh. I didn't accept it. I am simply not assuming he's full of shit from the get-go because his results do not fit into the paradigm of how I think things should work.

Quote:
just because it's from someone who is a nobel prize winner

I mention the nobel prize simply for context, so that Anthony knows it's not some college drop out in his garage. This is someone who knows a little something about HIV DNA and how PCR works.

Quote:
Just because the times he did it with both pure water this didn't happen doesn't suggest that his methods when using pure water and DNA are somehow "good."

That is exactly what it suggests. Note the word "suggest." It doesn't mean "prove"; it means "suggest."

That is how experiments work, Byte. That is what controls are for. You keep all things constant, and change ONE thing. If you get different results, it *suggests* the results MAY be caused by that ONE thing. Of course, you have to replicate the experiment, and do more controls, and have others do the same. But assuming there is no outright fraud, you look for possible explanations of the data and rule each one out one by one.

The contamination explanation has been ruled out for now, unless you can explain why TT#2 is ONLY "contaminated" when there is an EM field, but not "contaminated" under other conditions.

Of course, again, it goes without saying this has to be replicated in other labs using the same methods before being "accepted."

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:32 AM

This article explains the HIV connection. No doubt it will also be scoffed at (you're not the first nor the last to scoff, Byte). But at least you can see why *he* draws the connection.

http://healthmad.com/conditions-and-diseases/electromagnetic-signals-w
ith-hiv/

Here is the original paper.

http://www.inpharm.cz/files/ext/EMS-a-HIV-AIDS.pdf

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:42 AM

Quote:
That is exactly what it suggests. Note the word "suggest." It doesn't mean "prove"; it means "suggest."

No, it really doesn't. Seriously, CTS. Of course both control sample vials would be okay, because they're both pure water.

But 12/12 times, a vial of water thought to be pure becomes contaminated when involved in an experiment with a contaminated vial? You're right that something is going on there, but their conclusion to explain it away is pretty much hilarious. It sounds like a joke, or something someone came up with after being dropped on their heads too many times, but more likely they realized if someone saw how BAD their data is, their funding would be cut off, so they made up some gobbledy-gook to justify their results.

Do you KNOW what would happen to a lab if I sent them 12 let's say 5 ppm benzene samples and asked them to run 12 lab control samples with it and all of them came back with detectable benzene? They'd lose their certification. I doubt the Bureau of Laboratory Improvement would seriously entertain a claim that hey, no, benzene is a polar molecule and what really happened is I passed all the samples through an electromagnetic field which caused benzene to transfer into the new vials.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Of course both control sample vials would be okay, because they're both pure water.

Are you saying if there is no DNA water in TT#1, there is nothing to contaminate TT#2 with?

--------
Experiment #1.

Before:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS.

16 hours and EM field at 7 Hz later...

After:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, same EMS as TT#1
Byte Explanation: TT#1 contaminated TT#2.

--------
Experiment #2.

Before:
TT#1: "Pure" water, No EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS.

16 hours and EM field at 7 Hz later...

After:
TT#1: "Pure" water, No EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS
Byte Explanation: TT#1 couldn't contaminate TT#2.

--------
Experiment #3.

Before:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS.

16 hours, EM field of 5 Hz later

After:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS
Byte Explanation: ? (Why didn't TT#1 contaminate TT#2? Does the frequency of the magnetic field affect "contamination" somehow?)

--------
Experiment #4.

Before:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS.

15 hours, EM field of 7 Hz later

After:
TT#1: DNA water, EMS
TT#2: "Pure" water, No EMS
Byte Explanation: ? (Why didn't TT#1 contaminate TT#2? Why would waiting the extra hour cause contamination?)

----------

If it is contamination, it is a remarkably complicated pattern of contamination. The pattern is so complicated you can announced it as an astonishing finding in and of itself: "Scientists find that contamination only occurs when a 7Hz field is applied for 16-18 hours." It is not a very parsimonious explanation.

Your other remarks suggest outright fraud as an explanation. It is quite a bold accusation considering you have no evidence. Personal incredulity does not count as evidence of fraud.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Do you KNOW what would happen to a lab if I sent them 12 let's say 5 ppm benzene samples and asked them to run 12 lab control samples with it and all of them came back with detectable benzene?

But see, the point of the study was, they didn't ALL come back with detectable benzene. It only came back with detectable benzene when a 7 hz magnetic field was applied for 16-18 hours.

The question is, what causes that pattern of contamination?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:46 AM

Again, electrophoresis would account for the sudden appearance of DNA in the mixture, slow movement taking hours for the DNA to get into the mixture, and the requirement of a certain hertz of electromagnetism to move the DNA, in accordance to necessary voltage differences in an associated induced electric field.

What's funny and unbelievable to me is that the people who published the articles resort to magical thinking to explain it. The fact is the samples were contaminated in the first place, because we can see the results of that contamination later on. It might be that they were contaminated in an interesting way, and the methods used coaxed the contamination into becoming detectable, but that doesn't mean that the samples weren't contaminated in the first place. They were. Clearly. Logic dictates that they were.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Again, electrophoresis would account for the sudden appearance of DNA in the mixture,

But there was no sudden appearance of DNA.

Did you read this paper or not?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:52 AM

Quote:
But there was no sudden appearance of DNA.

Of course there was. Do they, or do they not, claim that 1) they checked a pure water test tube and a DNA water tube and found pure water and DNA respectively, 2) hours later, after applying 7hz electromagnetic wave, measured again and found DNA in the pure water tube? And that they did this 12 times?

And what the hell are we talking about here, if not that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Again, electrophoresis would account for the sudden appearance of DNA in the mixture, slow movement taking hours for the DNA to get into the mixture, and the requirement of a certain hertz of electromagnetism to move the DNA, in accordance to necessary voltage differences in an associated induced electric field.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

But this doesn't explain why the contamination only occurred when TT#1 had "DNA water." If the dry test tubes themselves were contaminated (because of some flawed process the lab used to clean their test tubes), they should ALL be contaminated . Meaning, the contamination on ALL the test tubes of "pure water" would show up after a 7 hz field was applied for 16-18 hours.

But when they specifically measured pure water vs. pure water, they didn't get any contamination at all. And that would be the only time when electrophoresis conditions were met that contamination didn't show up.

Contamination seems more like the resort to magical thinking.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Do they, or do they not, claim that 1) they checked a pure water test tube and a DNA water tube and found pure water and DNA respectively,

No, they did not.

Quote:
2) hours later, after applying 7hz electromagnetic wave, measured again and found DNA in the pure water tube? And that they did this 12 times?

No, they did not.

Maybe you should read this paper, or at least my summary of the paper to Anthony, before we continue this discussion.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:03 PM

Quote:
Contamination seems more like the resort to magical thinking.

Well, it's either that, or the two vials are close enough together that the glass between the solutions acts like an agar gel. But their given explanation as I understand it is not scientific. I must scoff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:05 PM

I read your summary to Anthony.

Also:

Quote:
But this doesn't explain why the contamination only occurred when TT#1 had "DNA water."

So, no detection of DNA contamination in the pure water, huh?

The only thing I see that I left out in my explanation was the PCR, which is ultimately not a big factor because there are many methods they could have used to detect the DNA in the pure water. The only interesting thing that the PCR adds to the experiment is that the amplified DNA is the same within statistical certainty to the DNA in the DNA water vial, but there are many possible explanations for this.

In any case, fine, we don't have to fight over this. I was more amused than anything else, but I understand my amusement can be grating. I'm not a very nice person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I read your summary to Anthony.

Then you must know that we're not talking about actual DNA in either of the test tubes.

Quote:
I'm not a very nice person.

You're a nicer person than I am. If we held a popularity contest on RWED between you and me, you would win, hands down.

Seriously.

Listen, I am open to the elaborate electrophoresis contamination hypothesis. What I am arguing for is some openness to the elaborate electro-transmission of DNA information hypothesis. Why conclude anything right now without more data?

Transmission of information through electromagnetic means is not un-"scientific." Radio and TV and wireless internet may seem like magical thinking to our ancestors, but the technology and the science is pretty reliable.

The only differences here are the medium of water and the absence of intent to communicate, if you will. Do nano particles continuously resonate at certain frequencies? Can those frequencies be transmitted through EM fields onto water molecules as "receivers"?

The answers may be no, but I don't think they are silly questions. I don't think the researchers deserve immediate ridicule or suspicion of fraud simply for trying to ask and answer them.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:28 PM

Quote:
Then you must know that we're not talking about actual DNA in either of the test tubes.

...But they did PCR from both. ???

You have to have DNA to PCR.

???

Quote:
Listen, I am open to the elaborate electrophoresis contamination hypothesis. What I am arguing for is some openness to the elaborate electro-transmission of DNA information hypothesis. Why conclude anything right now without more data?

...hmnh... I don't buy it still, but your proposal is acceptable. I'll withhold further mockery of the article publishers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:38 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is like arguing that the sky is blue.

Science is derived from science, not from random speculation on the impossible.

A solid understanding of quantum mechanics would show at least the difficulty of quantum teleportation on any level, and if any of this were at all possible, life on earth and matter in the universe would rapidly disintegrate.

Anyone can study DNA replication mechanisms in detail on wikipedia.

If someone tells me that they have reversed a quantum event traveling through time by the use of dual wave pairs, over a split second with a single particle, I'll examine their science, and consider the possibility. If, OTOH, someone claims that they have teleported an elephant to the moon, I will discount it out of hand, unless they show up in a Police Call Box that materializes in my living room.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Science is derived from science, not from random speculation on the impossible.

Impossible is a subjective point of view.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...But they did PCR from both. ???

No, no, no. Now I'm wondering if you really did read my summary to Anthony. It's all there.

They did PCR, then put it through extreme serial dilutions and serial agitations, then filtered it to nothing bigger than 20 nm. The first test tube was water with no actual DNA in it.

The second test tube was pure water, also with no actual DNA in it. After the EM exposure, he added nucleotides, primers, and polymerases and THEN did PCR. He got almost the identical DNA fragment he put into PCR before dilution.

The whole experiment was to test 1) the presence of DNA information in TT#1, and 2) the transmission of said information to TT#2, see?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:49 PM

Quote:
They did PCR, then put it through extreme serial dilutions and serial agitations

= DNA water...

Quote:
The second test tube was pure water, also with no actual DNA in it. After the EM exposure, he added nucleotides, primers, and polymerases and THEN did PCR.

= pure water...

He did PCR on both. I really don't see how that's different from what I'm saying. I agreed to drop it at your request, but you keep claiming I don't know what I'm talking about and that necessitates I defend myself, it's making this thread go much longer then it needs to.

Trust me, I understand what he did, and I disagree with his conclusions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
He did PCR on both.

No. He did PCR, then diluted it to 10 -15. He took the extreme dilution with no molecules of DNA and put it in the first test tube. He didn't do PCR on/from Test Tube #1.

For TT#2, he added PCR ingredients, THEN did PCR. The result should have been random nothingness because there was no DNA to amplify, but it wasn't. That was the surprise.

Whatever happens when you try to PCR a solution with no DNA, that is what should have happened. But what he got a DNA fragment nearly identical to the original.

Quote:
Byte previously:
...But they did PCR from both. ???

You have to have DNA to PCR.

I was disputing your assertion that there is DNA in both test tubes. That is incorrect.

There was no DNA in either test tube.

Quote:
Trust me, I understand what he did, and I disagree with his conclusions.

If you keep saying there was DNA in both test tubes when there wasn't, I've got no choice but to conclude you didn't understand what he did.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:30 PM

...

Okay, we are seriously not able to see eye to eye here.

You have to have DNA to do PCR. Period.

You can add a bunch of nucleotides to a solution, but you will not get a coherent DNA strand without an existing DNA template.

I understand full well that this guy is trying to claim you can get perfect replicated DNA strands from GHOSTS, but I think it's impossible, okay? Because how the polymerase WORKS.

How the polymerase works is very well established.

We can't get hung up on when I call something DNA water and when I call something pure water because I'm just using those tenses to differentiate between the two test tubes. If you want to call it inaccurate terminology, I don't really care.

Where we disagree is whether there is or isn't DNA in both test tubes, which is why I said what I did. You can call it a disagreement, but do NOT call that a misunderstanding on my part.

And since we've already agreed to disagree, let's uphold that agreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:15 PM

I think there's an information theory issue.

Luc Montagnier's claim to fame is discovering HIV, which he won in a legal battle over the simultaneous discovery by Robert Gallo. Years later, after being demonized in "And the band played on" Gallo was vindicated, as at least independently discovering the virus. I've read Gallo's work and found it to be sound. I have never, until now, questioned the legitimacy of Luc Montagnier's.

The underlying paper behind this article is unscientific, and abandons the conventions of scientific reporting, which says to me that the researcher is not a scientist, and is not familiar with convention. In fact, the paper is filled with obfuscation, as if he is trying to blind me with his scientific jingo-jargonism to the underlying truth of what he did, and what results he achieved. A deeper but not very long internet search revealed that this has long been a pet theory of his, and so he is trying to prove his own preconceived notion.

The problems here are myriad, from a scientific standpoint, but as the Cover article posted explains, the first one that jumps out at you is what I like to call "wrong number."

Many many theories suffer from wrong number. Chemtrails, depleted uranium contamination, etc. Usually when the result are off in these theories, they are off by dozens of orders of magnitude, and this one is no exception.

So, in an underlying way, do electrical fields influence the binding properties of DNA to replicate DNA? Sure, this is part of physical chem and essentially what we're saying when we talk about electron affinity and migrating electrons across molecular structures. But we're talking on a scale 10 to the 30th smaller here. The result is still a contact chemical bond of an individual amino acid.

Second, even if the information were transmitted, why in the world would the sequence be? This is pure fantasy. The electron affinity bound within each allele would not operate in concert with the others. Hell, nothing mandates regular DNA in pure chemical replication to replicate in sequence. It is held in sequence by a backbone.

Third, any such signal would be instantly drowned out by any signal from an adjacent water molecule. I could go on and on with the million reasons why this is nonsense, but let me jump to my next concern.

Luc Montagnier was a lab assistant to Willy Rozenbaum, who in turn was a research assistant to Jean Claude Chermann, if i understand correctly. Chermann specialized in retroviruses. His claim to be the discoverer of HIV looks to be as solid as Gallo's, and there's really no way to know.

So find myself asking whether or not Montagnier has an actual legitimate claim to anything, or whether he is just a kook with a pet theory.

In a way, this thread is like the astrology thread. We all sort of migrated to the idea that the positions of the stars represented the time of year, and that was what could have an influence, not the stars themselves.

Well, why not? Those stars transmit unique radio frequency signatures, and their presence in a dominant position in the sky could influence your neurological development.

Reason: wrong number.

Even the closest star system with the most complex radiation pattern would have to be radically more significant to have any effect at all. Even if you did prove that radio.logical patterns alter neurological development in a predictable, rather than random, fashion, you would still need to deal with numbers.

For the Centauri system, we're talking a star with 1/259,200th the influence of the sun. That's 2.592 times 10 to the power of minus 6, so call it e-6 in other words, no, it's impossible. If influence on this scale is impossible, then e-30 is out of the question, right? Right. E-30 is always out of the question. This is an absolutely enormous scale. It's equivalent to saying that bombing of Hiroshima had a direct measurable income on the doppler effect of distant quasars and the posited expansion rate of the universe. Its like saying that an increase in your personal heart rate is directly responsible for global warming.

Wrong number is the major problem with bogus theories. Just because something can happen, doesn't mean that it does, even when you are on the right scale. Incidental things such as temperature, ph levels, ionic concentrations, etc. Will stop DNA in it's tracks very readily, and a great number of other things.

Electromagnetism of the molecular structure of amino acids in alleles of a DNA strand belong on a scale of quantum mechanics, and should only be considered to exist on a scale of molecular bonds at the actual point contact <1nm by physical chemists and biophysists trying to determine whether or not a contact bond would form due to polarization.* not on any larger scale.

* strangely, this actually is an issue in biochemistry, some reactions predicted by chemists actually do not occur for this reason, but that's for nuclear physicists to argue about.

This study is extreme far from anything that I would recognize as science. It's dubious that it belongs on as high a rank as Hulda Clark, which is pure quackery, devoid of merit, but at least the theory is on the right mathematical scale for her to be right, if it weren't for myriad logical flaws, and the fact that she's a charlatan doing a lot of damage to her customers.

Bottom line: yes, electricity and EMF have an impact on your body, and the answer is, only if they are very very strong currents and fields, and if this is the case, stay away from them, because that effect is random, chaotic, and destructive.

No large scale EMF is going to have any ordered effect on biochemistry, no nano-EMF is going to have any effect on the outside world. The only thing you can do by crossing the two is fuck up your own nano EMFs by mucking them up with some large EMF. IOW, stay clear of power lines, and there's been some discussion of the danger of household AC current and cordless phones. But again, this is an issue of random damage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:03 PM

Byte, I still do not believe you understand what he did, because you still keep saying he did PCR on BOTH test tubes, even though he only did PCR on #2.

If you want to say #2 must have had DNA contamination for the PCR to come out the way it did, I am open to that suggestion. In that case, the original PCR was only the irrelevant source of contamination of all the test tubes in the lab. However, I insist there was still no DNA in TT#1, and no PCR was ever done on it.

But OK, agree to disagree.

DT, I never realized how different our worldviews were until you posted this. I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye when it comes to anything in science.

I'll just leave it at that.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:07 PM

The PCR wasn't done at the same time. For the DNA tube, it was done at the beginning, and then he diluted. For the pure water, it was done at the end. This doesn't change that at some point both went under PCR.

My assumption of course is that if PCR in the pure tube resulted in DNA amplification, if he had added it to the DNA tube, it would also have amplified. I don't know why he didn't add any to the DNA tube, but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, we know what the outcome would be either way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:44 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Cold fusion anyone?

BTW - to create DNA out of PURE WATER some hydrogen and oxygen H2O atoms somewhere would have to be transmuted into carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 1:47 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
A solid understanding of quantum mechanics would show at least the difficulty of quantum teleportation on any level, and if any of this were at all possible, life on earth and matter in the universe would rapidly disintegrate.

Not least because it requires entangled particles, which clearly doesn't apply here.

Perhaps this will lead to some universe ending event in it's own right, but the whole thing sounds like nonsense to me.

Besides, no one ever got drunk on homeopathic lager, no matter how highly diluted it was.

Quote:
Wrong number is the major problem with bogus theories. Just because something can happen, doesn't mean that it does, even when you are on the right scale. Incidental things such as temperature, ph levels, ionic concentrations, etc. Will stop DNA in it's tracks very readily, and a great number of other things.

Exactly, can someone pass this on to Deepak Chopra (Mr, if something can conceivably happen, regardless of how monumentally unlikely, it must happen all the time)?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 4:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I still do not believe I have a firm enough grasp on this process to make a sensible critique.

However, I think the use of the word 'teleport' has scuttled the ability to discuss this intelligently.

In none of the materials provided to me does the word or even the idea of 'teleportation' seem to be implied. The casual misuse of that word by the writers of an article (and the post title) serves only to muddy the water.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
However, I think the use of the word 'teleport' has scuttled the ability to discuss this intelligently.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I am sorry my summary was not sufficiently helpful for you.

Again, as in the free speech zone debate, I find myself defending something I am not too fond of.

Personally, I find this paper sloppy, and that is a kind word. I just told my hub last night, this would not pass a master's thesis defense in graduate school. He left too many details out, too many questions unaddressed.

There are many methodological problems and limitations with this paper. However, "It must be wrong because it does not fit into my understanding of what is possible" is not one of them. Science does not dismiss empirical results based on personal incredulity. In fact, science exists precisely to overcome that kind of subjective bias. I felt I had to defend that principle.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 4:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Remember "cold fusion"?

The final nail in the cold fusion coffin was that it could not be replicated. Let's see if this experiment can be (ahem!) replicated. I realize that scientists don't like to be "scooped", that they often leave out essential details in a paper so they can continue work w/o competition, but after making a claim like this, full disclosure is in the experimenter's interest. And if the details necessary to allow experimental replication aren't made available, that does not say anything good about the experiment... or the experimenter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 4:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The final nail in the cold fusion coffin was that it could not be replicated."

Hello,

I have often wondered about this.

I remember reading that no one could replicate results indicating fusion.

However, I don't remember all the phenomenon of the test being explained. Something about warmth in the water. It's been a while.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And if the details necessary to allow experimental replication aren't made available, that does not say anything good about the experiment... or the experimenter.

Yes, exactly.

Since he's had some patent disputes over this EMS detection device he invented, I wonder if he will be forthcoming about his instrument. Maybe he cares not whether people scoff and malign his reputation.

Why announce it though, unless you want people to believe you? Maybe the purpose of the paper is not to convince, but to merely establish his authorship of these ideas.

Whatever.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 5:42 AM

Citizen

Welcome back

Anthony,

I remember a couple of explanations about chemicals used which might have undergone normal but potent reactions.

Another possibility is that they did get a fusion event, but that this is an extremely rare chance event, and they thought it was something that they had done.

I actually don't like fusion, I think its too risky. There are a couple fusion projects running that actually work, but my understanding is no one can control the reaction. I saw a photo of a containment field for one, and my thought was, a) this is an amazing scifi set, and b) what happens if this field breaks down? Does it destroy half of Switzerland?

But this more closely resembles another experiment, I'm trying to recall. Not the quantum teleport one, which went okay, but is now being doubted, Im not convinced by the doubters yet. I also thought the recent quantum time travel was fairly sound, but all this needs to be examined more in depth. But there was a other one, dealing with DNA or amino acids, it wasn't the spontaneous life generation from the mars expedition. Phooey. I cant remember.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:29 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Does it destroy half of Switzerland?"

Hello,

I doubt it. The kind of fusion we can make, if you stop feeding it, it stops.

So any destruction would be extremely limited in scope.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 3:37 PM