![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 20, 2012, May 20, 2013, May 20, 2017, and May 20, 2018. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luc Montagnier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Article distinctions | ||
|
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." ( RfC, December 2021)
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)
That article presents no actual data. It only refers to his two papers published in 2009, and makes grand claims while not presenting any data. A mention could be made, but with the caveat that there is no evidence in the paper to support his claim. I'm honestly baffled at how that paper managed to be published. My only guess is that the editor was star-struck by his name and never actually read the paper. 159.92.238.60 ( talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
New claim by him seems to be that Covid-19 was deliberately made but accidentally released. Need a French speaker to confirm that this is his opinion, but if so, then it is relevant to his wikipedia entry.
"The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic which has already killed more than 120,000 people in the world is a manipulated virus, accidentally released from a Chinese laboratory in search of an AIDS vaccine. "
[1]
Archived: http://archive.is/vuzhZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2418:EC01:6D8C:5629:AA53:1C85 ( talk • contribs)
"that paranoid conspiracy theory" Well that didn't age well. 95.53.212.163 ( talk) 09:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Recently an IP added to section Luc_Montagnier#Coronavirus_pandemic a refutation of the subject's assertion re: man-made. This was reverted a minute laterwith summary "Bad source".
Today I came across the same cited link on a "Fact Check" section of a news summary site, news.google.com, and came here to add that.
I've restored the text asking the reverter to explain more. Here is a good place. Shenme ( talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the page states "However this was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic." in response to his claims about the origin of the corona virus. However, the given source is the official Chinese State media [1], and searching for an excerpt on Google [2] gives you tons of other Chinese media outlets, some of which are definitely not trustworthy (check other news reports there). As China is being accused in this case, I suggest adding "as reported by Chinese state-run press agency" or adding another source. Torquan ( talk) 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
@ OptimusComposite84: That is not what he said, Optimus. - He was asked about the natural origins and said it could have been (natural), or it could have been something else. He wants to know 'what was going on in China'. So from what I gather he does not believe it was deliberate, however, 'it could have been something else' surely suggests belief in a possible accidental lab leak. Especially given the WHO's failure to locate any animal reservoir (I cannot provide the YouTube link here. Search -> Youtube -> Poynter Fauci. Timestamp 11:48). Maximum70 ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This is related to this proposed change. This editorial-style NYT article did not mention HIV, AIDS or Montagnier. It argues that belief in a lab leak was popularized, yet still ends with a "we don't know". Montagnier's claim that SARS-CoV-2 was human engineered including with the insertion of HIV genes is not considered credible by the scientific community. The proposed sentence seems to attempt to balance this and suggest that, well, maybe Montagnier's right. This fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GEVAL. Moreover, the source's conclusion was somewhat misrepresented, as it doesn't propose that there's a scientific consensus that a lab leak is plausible (even less that it would be an engineered virus). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 13:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 might have been the result of a laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 was man-made in a laboratory and that it might have been the result of an attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. His allegation came after the United States had launched a probe into whether the virus came from a laboratory. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
hints that the lab leak theory is wrong and thus leans toward impeaching Montagnier on the wrong termsfor the pandemic to result from this, this still implies:
not considered likely for a number of technical reasons anywaydoesn't quite cut it, because the theory no longer departs significantly from the mainstream. Although it may not be likely, that is not for us to judge; rather we judge whether it is a fringe theory, and clearly it no longer is.
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 might have been the result of a laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS.Brycehughes ( talk) 03:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
justifying what Montagnier suggests. I am simply restructuring a sentence. The information contained in my revision is the same as that which I am replacing; I am tweaking the emphasis. Sourcing doesn't come into play here.
argued that COVID-19 was man-made in a laboratory? Brycehughes ( talk) 05:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is behind the ball. The lab leak is no longer a lunatic fringe theory. It's being considered by the WHO, CDC, and was mentioned by President Biden. E.g.:
2601:181:C381:6C80:98F:FD69:F464:AEA1 ( talk) 15:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I think you've misread what I've said because it's some kind of emotional political issue. No one said we should present Flat Earth as a correct scientific theory in Wikipedia. Neither are we talking about putting various lab leak ideas as correct scientific theories in Wikipedia. I am saying it's odd for a BLP to go out of its way to attack its subject, in particular the introduction, because he said something that is discussed in scientific journals like Nature and in mainstream newspapers like the Wall Street Journal. Other BLPs do not talk about their subjects like this, whether on merely controversial ideas, or totally beyond-the-pale ideas. The article on Ted Kaczynski does not even use the term "conspiracy theory". The article on Lyndon LaRouche discusses it in a lower section on "Controversy", not the introduction, and in very neutral, second-hand terms. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 71.174.145.17 ( talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
During the 1970s he created the foundation of the LaRouche Movement and became more engaged in conspiratorial beliefs and violent and/or illegal activities. We talk about the most notable aspects of each BLP, regardless of how "critical" it is, dependent only on how well it is sourced to RSes. And this statement is sourced quite well. It is how our sources describe Montagnier. It appears you may have a problem with the state of the sources instead of the state of this article. I would direct you to WP:NOTTRUTH, which explains how wiki is not a place where "truth" is documented, but rather where "verifiability" drives inclusion of content. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
France Soir reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/leminent-professeur-luc-montagnier-sest-eteint-le-8-fevrier-2022 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gvcormac (
talk •
contribs)
14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
L'internaute reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.linternaute.com/actualite/biographie/2605567-mort-de-luc-montagnier-le-deces-d-un-prix-nobel-l-hommage-de-didier-raoult/
Rai News reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2022/02/il-giallo-della-morte-di-luc-montaglier-3d9c82af-791a-4162-adc9-579fa5aef53b.html
il fatto quotidiano reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-e-giallo-sulla-morte-del-premio-nobel-ne-conferme-ufficiali-ne-smentite-alla-notizia-del-decesso/6488848/
Sky TG24 reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-morto-france-soir
Sud Radio reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
Didier Raoult rend hommage au Professeur Luc Montagnier
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)
FBI and Energy Department have made statements: Mick2 ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
|
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. [1]“ JustinReilly ( talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
this individual article is not reliable as key arguments make no sense and, much more importantly, biomedical information, broadly construed, requires [WP:MEDRS]] sources
References
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)
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)
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)
Lenschulwitz, can you please make the case for your disputed change here? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 20, 2012, May 20, 2013, May 20, 2017, and May 20, 2018. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luc Montagnier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Article distinctions | ||
|
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." ( RfC, December 2021)
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)
That article presents no actual data. It only refers to his two papers published in 2009, and makes grand claims while not presenting any data. A mention could be made, but with the caveat that there is no evidence in the paper to support his claim. I'm honestly baffled at how that paper managed to be published. My only guess is that the editor was star-struck by his name and never actually read the paper. 159.92.238.60 ( talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
New claim by him seems to be that Covid-19 was deliberately made but accidentally released. Need a French speaker to confirm that this is his opinion, but if so, then it is relevant to his wikipedia entry.
"The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic which has already killed more than 120,000 people in the world is a manipulated virus, accidentally released from a Chinese laboratory in search of an AIDS vaccine. "
[1]
Archived: http://archive.is/vuzhZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2418:EC01:6D8C:5629:AA53:1C85 ( talk • contribs)
"that paranoid conspiracy theory" Well that didn't age well. 95.53.212.163 ( talk) 09:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Recently an IP added to section Luc_Montagnier#Coronavirus_pandemic a refutation of the subject's assertion re: man-made. This was reverted a minute laterwith summary "Bad source".
Today I came across the same cited link on a "Fact Check" section of a news summary site, news.google.com, and came here to add that.
I've restored the text asking the reverter to explain more. Here is a good place. Shenme ( talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the page states "However this was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic." in response to his claims about the origin of the corona virus. However, the given source is the official Chinese State media [1], and searching for an excerpt on Google [2] gives you tons of other Chinese media outlets, some of which are definitely not trustworthy (check other news reports there). As China is being accused in this case, I suggest adding "as reported by Chinese state-run press agency" or adding another source. Torquan ( talk) 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
@ OptimusComposite84: That is not what he said, Optimus. - He was asked about the natural origins and said it could have been (natural), or it could have been something else. He wants to know 'what was going on in China'. So from what I gather he does not believe it was deliberate, however, 'it could have been something else' surely suggests belief in a possible accidental lab leak. Especially given the WHO's failure to locate any animal reservoir (I cannot provide the YouTube link here. Search -> Youtube -> Poynter Fauci. Timestamp 11:48). Maximum70 ( talk) 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This is related to this proposed change. This editorial-style NYT article did not mention HIV, AIDS or Montagnier. It argues that belief in a lab leak was popularized, yet still ends with a "we don't know". Montagnier's claim that SARS-CoV-2 was human engineered including with the insertion of HIV genes is not considered credible by the scientific community. The proposed sentence seems to attempt to balance this and suggest that, well, maybe Montagnier's right. This fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GEVAL. Moreover, the source's conclusion was somewhat misrepresented, as it doesn't propose that there's a scientific consensus that a lab leak is plausible (even less that it would be an engineered virus). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 13:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 might have been the result of a laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 was man-made in a laboratory and that it might have been the result of an attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. His allegation came after the United States had launched a probe into whether the virus came from a laboratory. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
hints that the lab leak theory is wrong and thus leans toward impeaching Montagnier on the wrong termsfor the pandemic to result from this, this still implies:
not considered likely for a number of technical reasons anywaydoesn't quite cut it, because the theory no longer departs significantly from the mainstream. Although it may not be likely, that is not for us to judge; rather we judge whether it is a fringe theory, and clearly it no longer is.
In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 might have been the result of a laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS.Brycehughes ( talk) 03:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
justifying what Montagnier suggests. I am simply restructuring a sentence. The information contained in my revision is the same as that which I am replacing; I am tweaking the emphasis. Sourcing doesn't come into play here.
argued that COVID-19 was man-made in a laboratory? Brycehughes ( talk) 05:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is behind the ball. The lab leak is no longer a lunatic fringe theory. It's being considered by the WHO, CDC, and was mentioned by President Biden. E.g.:
2601:181:C381:6C80:98F:FD69:F464:AEA1 ( talk) 15:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I think you've misread what I've said because it's some kind of emotional political issue. No one said we should present Flat Earth as a correct scientific theory in Wikipedia. Neither are we talking about putting various lab leak ideas as correct scientific theories in Wikipedia. I am saying it's odd for a BLP to go out of its way to attack its subject, in particular the introduction, because he said something that is discussed in scientific journals like Nature and in mainstream newspapers like the Wall Street Journal. Other BLPs do not talk about their subjects like this, whether on merely controversial ideas, or totally beyond-the-pale ideas. The article on Ted Kaczynski does not even use the term "conspiracy theory". The article on Lyndon LaRouche discusses it in a lower section on "Controversy", not the introduction, and in very neutral, second-hand terms. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 71.174.145.17 ( talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
During the 1970s he created the foundation of the LaRouche Movement and became more engaged in conspiratorial beliefs and violent and/or illegal activities. We talk about the most notable aspects of each BLP, regardless of how "critical" it is, dependent only on how well it is sourced to RSes. And this statement is sourced quite well. It is how our sources describe Montagnier. It appears you may have a problem with the state of the sources instead of the state of this article. I would direct you to WP:NOTTRUTH, which explains how wiki is not a place where "truth" is documented, but rather where "verifiability" drives inclusion of content. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
France Soir reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/leminent-professeur-luc-montagnier-sest-eteint-le-8-fevrier-2022 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gvcormac (
talk •
contribs)
14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
L'internaute reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.linternaute.com/actualite/biographie/2605567-mort-de-luc-montagnier-le-deces-d-un-prix-nobel-l-hommage-de-didier-raoult/
Rai News reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2022/02/il-giallo-della-morte-di-luc-montaglier-3d9c82af-791a-4162-adc9-579fa5aef53b.html
il fatto quotidiano reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-e-giallo-sulla-morte-del-premio-nobel-ne-conferme-ufficiali-ne-smentite-alla-notizia-del-decesso/6488848/
Sky TG24 reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-morto-france-soir
Sud Radio reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022.
Didier Raoult rend hommage au Professeur Luc Montagnier
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)
FBI and Energy Department have made statements: Mick2 ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
|
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. [1]“ JustinReilly ( talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
this individual article is not reliable as key arguments make no sense and, much more importantly, biomedical information, broadly construed, requires [WP:MEDRS]] sources
References
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)
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)
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)
Lenschulwitz, can you please make the case for your disputed change here? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)