Talk:Luc Montagnier/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Credits of the discovery of the AIDS virus

The French version of the article gives the credit to Jean-Claude Chermann and Vittorio Colizzi, Luc Montagnier being just the boss.

Also have a look to La découverte du virus du Sida en 1983

--Carrasco 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


"being just the boss". That's true. Just the administrative boss.

IP, 6 October 2008

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


For your information

I, David Snow, did the last editing, while not logged in. --Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More info needed

I see a lot about his work on HIV and other projects, but nothing about his training or education or previous work. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AIDS denial & Luc Montagnier

"AIDS reappraisal", which more properly should be known as AIDS denial, generally denies that HIV causes AIDS. Basically these are raving lunatics like Peter Duesberg and Phillip E. Johnson, who like holocaust denialists and evolution denialists, deny everything without specifying what their alternative is. I doubt very much that Prof. Montagnier is in with this group (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he has spoken publicly against this nonsense), though no doubt he is misquoted by them.

So where is the citation for this? Paul Silverman 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit demented to to use emotive terms like "holocaust denial" when someone questions a scientific discovery. Its only by questioning we learn more about scientific discovery. These emotive terms should be removed. It just goes to show that the battles for hearts and minds in the HIV debate is has strong has ever ,and that Gallo and his peers havent won the argument ....yet.
The problem is that scientists question findings all the time. AIDS denial is a transparent sham and has many of the features of holocaust denial.
Anyway, no-one's answered my question. I would expect misquotation, it's about all their argument stacks up to be. Where has Mr Montagnier denied AIDS causes HIV? Paul Silverman 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Type in Montagnier, hiv, aids, cofactor and your search engine will give you lots of junk and some good stuff. It appears Montagnier and Gallo have embraced cofactors - ie HIV is not sufficient - ie HIV doesn't give you AIDS unless you have lots of other problems to go along.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Denial", "Raving lunatics", "without specifying what their alternative is"!!![sorry, where does the burden of proof lie here?] - must every minority view be subject to this vitriolic treatment? If you are convinced of your hypothesis, then you have no need to indulge in such gormless attacks. Science is about reasoned debate, dissent, questioning and paradigm shifts. Not about wanting to portray voices who dare question the comfortable status quo as on the same level as holocaust deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.8.112 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4 AIDS truth exposed!!! Shocking un-cut footage from Brent Leung's documentary "House of Numbers" reveals truth about AIDS as told by Dr. Luc Montagnier. AIDS can be reversed. Nutrition is the answer. Hear it straight from the co-discoverer of HIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.227.111 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Montagnier does not say that AIDS can be reversed by nutrition, and such a claim is contrary to his public statements. Regarding the clip which is being hawked around the net, he describes his words there as being "taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate". In fact he was talking about his hypothesis that relatively high seroprevalence in Africa may be the result of increased rates of progression from initial to chronic infection in part because of widepread malnutrition. This is a controversial view in itself, and little supported by evidence, but it is certainly not the same thing as saying "AIDS can be reversed by nutrition". On A Leash (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

why is Luc Montagniers position about oxidative stress, co-factors and interview in the documentary House of Numbers not mentioned in the article? This is rather a surprising and very important change of directions and should be noted accordingly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.88.71.252 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a genetic co-factor, see http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/05/gene_research_finds_clues_to_aids_survival/ I remember seeing an article like "Romans have destroyed European resistance against AIDS" in a historical magazine. This does not mean that HIV does not cause AIDS; it still is its cause. But there are certain people who, although infected with HIV, never develop AIDS; they are called "controllers". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the mentioned article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7596532.stm Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course there are "cofactors", in the sense that you're using the word. This is hardly unique to HIV. Some people infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis develop disease and other don't, presumably due in part to "cofactors". The same is true of hepatitis B and C viruses, typhoid fever, etc etc... Very few pathogens cause manifest disease in 100% of infected individuals. This basic fact is familiar to any moderately intelligent and interested layperson. Out of what could charitably be assumed to be ignorance, a handful of people have twisted this fact to suggest that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I'm not clear on the relevance of this to a biography of Luc Montaignier, and pending any actual reliable sources connecting the two, I would suggest tabling this discussion. MastCell Talk 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs more biographical information

Would be useful to have more biographical information.

Good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Views on homeopathy

This interview is pretty interesting, on this front. He is quoted as saying "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Controversies section makes extensive use of that source. It's not exactly favorable to Montagnier. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack medicine

Here is a link about Montagnier's recent research: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagnier-for.html Perhaps reliable sources could be found about it and processed inside the main article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I suggest a label of pseudoscience for the section "Electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA". 94.215.71.221 (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Harriet A. Hall not being accepted as a reliable source? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081 IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added it because this is a fringe subject and WP:PARITY says: "critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's really funny. A private blog to balance so many other reliable sources? I find her article kind of interesting but its inclusion is too much. The main reason is that the claim is not fringe here is a from reputable scientist - if you want to include Hall's article per parity you should include homeopath's claims first and cite them as well. Then it might have a place. Otherwise it is inappropriate. Don't you think so?--George1918 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
George1918, how did you get such sophisticated knowledge of WP policies having such a new account? PPdd (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

and one blogger suggesting that "Montagnier should be awarded an IgNobel prize."[19]

I cannot find the source. Could someone show it ?--George1918 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right - it doesn't appear to be in the source cited. The correct source seems to be Scorn over claim of teleported DNA, New Scientist issue 2795, 12 January 2011 (full text not available without subscription, but the text supporting what the article says has been reposted in various places so you should be able to find it), which is also the source for the quotation from NS used in the article. Brunton (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It's already there as ref 16, but the later statements sourced from it have gone to the wrong NS article. Brunton (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Brunton (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Great. You see for the first time we agreed on something. Isn't that interesting?

Reliable sources and consistency

"Harriet A. Hall, after analyzing the study and pointing out a number of flaws, stated: "...even assuming the results are valid, they tend to discredit homeopathy, not support it...Homeopathy is a system of clinical treatment that can only be validated by in vivo clinical trials. Homeopaths who believe Montagnier’s study supports homeopathy are only demonstrating their enormous capacity for self-deception."[21]

Unless we cite what homeopaths say about Montagnier( who and where ) I will remove the above fragment for the reasons stated above. You need the claims of Homeopaths first - are there any? It is not an organization but basically a blog which could be used to balance a fringe claim ( by a fringe journal or scientist )but in this case it is a high quality reliable source not even a notable homeopath which hosts the claims of a Nobelist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1918 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What high quality source is hosting Montagnier's claim? Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences is not a reliable source. Montagnier's status as a nobel laureate does not impart reliability upon it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the claim of homeopaths that his experiment proves or supports homeopathy? Is there one?

The main question is : where is the claim of homeopaths that his experiment proves or supports homeopathy? Is there one? Please show us. If there is no reference or citation to it, then, why do you think Hall' s comment in this context makes any sense? --George1918 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences paper doesn't actually mention homoeopathy, by the way. It is therefore not "a high quality reliable source", or even any kind of source at all, for a link between this work and homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
While Montagnier's own mention of homeopathy justifies using Hall's quote, it would be logical to mention which notable homeopaths claim that Montagnier's research supports homeopathy. She's likely thinking of someone who has an "enormous capacity for self-deception". Dana Ullman comes to mind, and I know he has made such a claim. There might even be others. We could reference him to prove the point, although that might be problematic since the claims might only be in unreliable sources. Since this is a fringe subject, we can probably allow it anyway to document the views of homeopaths. I'll look into it and hopefully this will help to resolve George1918's concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some info.--George1918 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, the sources don't, someone had created a synthesis of this source with some other. It does nothing to support the claims of Homeopaths. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
His original self-published paper doesn't mention homeopathic preparations either. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
He himself talks about the part of homeopathy he finds valid - so these references are correctly cited. Since there is no source or reference or information about homeopaths who claim that the study supports homeopathy, I will remove Hall' reference to it.--George1918 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Why? I haven't particularly looked for homeopath claims, (the exist) but I don't see how it's relevant? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Answered above. I have moved the heading to its logical spot and made it a subheading. Now this is grouped together so we don't comment on the same things in two threads. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hall 's comment about homeopaths who claim whatever they claim makes no sense. You have to cite what exactly they claim first, - if you want to cite Hall's comment about them. --George1918 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I had not read the above Branfiger. Thanks for trying to find sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1918 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done my best to fix the situation. By making it chronological it's easier to figure out the sequence of events. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a story in the Sunday Times last year (Jonathan Leake: Nobel laureate gives hope to homeopaths, Sunday Times 4 July 2010, p. 10 - unfortunately behind paywall) reporting Montagnier's presentation of his research to a meeting of Nobel laureates. While it says that Montagnier didn't actually mention homoeopathy, the article quotes Cristal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association, as saying that Montagnier's work gave homoeopathy "a true scientific ethos". I think this should be usable as RS for a representative of a mainstream homoeopathic organisation claiming that Montagnier's work supports homoeopathy. It also quotes another Nobel laureate as describing it as "nonsense" so this could also be used as an additional source for the sentence "Many scientists have greeted the research with scorn and harsh criticism." Brunton (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The edit is really laughable. Use of single words of homeopathy and high dilutions? Yeah, they were talking about astrophysics and suddenly Montagnier murmured : High dilutions ...homeopathy- eh I m sorry I was thinking of something else - so what was your question again? And then Ullman declared that Montagnier "supports Homeopathy". How can Ullman be so delusional?
I will you a chance you can try to fix it. I m trying to protect you here- this looks so bad on your editing style (not on Ullman anymore) and your ability to write anything about Homeopaths without being horribly biased - it even exceeds bias and goes beyond. You have the ability to do better than that. I know. --George1918 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much finished for now. You can compare the before (I started) and after versions. Just open each version in a different window and compare. I naturally believe I have been faithful to the sources, but I'm sure it can be improved. The source Brunton has just mentioned above hasn't been added yet.

George1918, if I have been unfaithful to the sources, please be very specific in your documentation and neutral in your description. Constructive and collaborative criticism is welcome, but your ridicule is unbecoming and unconstructive. You can do better. This is a collaborative project and the best articles are created when editors who hold opposing POV cooperate in a collegial manner for the good of Wikipedia, personal POV be damned.

This gives the WEIGHT required for a fringe subject. The mainstream POV must be prominent, but the fringe POV should also be described. This is the result of what you were pushing for. The subject is covered much better now. I don't own those edits and I welcome improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention of offending you. Just a little joke on the edit. I will try to come up with something better and more accurate ( in my opinion ). And I m telling you again - I don't want to push promote anything fringe or homeopathy - I know I cannot persuade you at the moment thought. --George1918 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Persuasion about personal POV isn't necessary. We just need to create a good article. Your POV is still valuable because you can provide a perspective that is needed. No one can see things from all angles, so we each need to supplement each other and work on ways - within our policies - for covering all notable aspects of the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added content about the 2010 Lindau Nobel laureate meeting in Germany. The Australian reported on the unsurprising reactions of the other Nobel laureates and scientists. I managed to find the actual page on the Lindau website which mentions his participation, so I got the exact date and URL from there. Finding resources often requires a bit of sleuthing, but that's part of the fun of editing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian story looks like an edited version of the Sunday Times story I mentioned above (note the sourcing at the foot of the story). It doesn't include the ST's comment that Montagnier didn't mention homoeopathy himself, but that it was brought up by Professor Ivar Giaevar (Nobel prize winner in 1973), "who described it as "nonsense". He said: This work has all the features of homeopathy. but the reality is that you cn never induce a structure in water or make it remember things. It is a liquid and it moves around all the time so it cannot retain information or structures."" Brunton (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Montagnier and Homeopathy

Hi (this is George 1918) I could not access my account. Regarding (On 30 January 2011, Ullman responded to Montagnier's single use of the words "homeopathy" and "high dilutions" in his 24 December 2010 Science interview by writing an article entitled "Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously". In the article he repeated his claim's that Montagnier's studies supported homeopathy.[24]) This is kind of funny and I will remove it. Single use of words "homeopathy" ? He said "Homeopathy is NOT right in everything but he also said that his work support high dilutions. "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." --George1919 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to Montagnier's websites

It seems that the present links to Montagnier's Foundation goes to a Japanese website. Someone (?) has asserted that his Foundation is called "Friends Fight AIDS", but I could not find that site. Instead, the URL to the Luc Montagnier Foundation is at: http://montagnier.net/montagnier/ . Also, the link the his "Official" website goes to another Japanese website selling acai berry products! I will let others make these correction, but wiki editors should not let these bad links continue. DanaUllmanTalk 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, it seems you're topic banned from any homeopathy-related Wikipedia page (including talk pages), and you probably shouldn't be posting here. Yobol (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanx for that fix...and for the record, I did not seek to change any content or even engage in discussion. I made a recommendation to fix an error. I showed good faith and ask that from others. DanaUllmanTalk 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not you showed good faith, you are banned from this and any other homeopathy-related talk pages. I would suggest not posting any more "recommendations" on this or any other homeopathy-related talk pages, or even responding to this comment here, without seeking express permission to do so first. Yobol (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits by IP 78.192.223.62

IP 78.192.223.62 has been changing text which results in nonsense sentences and changes to names in the article that do not appear to be supported by the refs. If someone can verify the info while also fixing the bad sentence(s) it would be appreciated. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

House of Numbers

House of Numbers - Luc says that HIV can not take hold in a person with a normal immune system. IE you get HIV after your immnune system has tanked - ie HIV doesn't cause anything it's a systom of something. Maybe it's a marker of other behavior, germs, ... that have already got you down. He was pretty clear - not vague at all - on this. IE no textual analysis needed as to what ole Luc meant.159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

House of Numbers is generally viewed as misleading (at best) or outright deceptive (at worst). Let's try to focus on sources that might be appropriate for a biographical article. MastCell Talk 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

- Sorry, are you saying that the words of Montagnier in [[House of Numbers] is lie? This should appear in the main article. Its a point of view from the man who discover HIV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javimk (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as in misrepresentation by the makers of the film using creative editing. This is covered in depth in the movie article and would be undue here. VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Luc Montagnier/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated start class for the following reasons:
  • Has photograph and year of birth, but lacks biographical material
  • Lacks references
  • Some information on research interests, but could be expanded
  • Lacks appropriate subheadings
  • Lacks external links

Last edited at 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier's true stance on homeopathy

1. Montagnier is a controversial figure in large part because his later work cannot be extricated from homeopathy. He has never outright stated "I support homeopathy". He has also never stated "I do not support homeopathy".

Nevertheless, there is a claim in the introductory paragraph on wikipedia that Luc Montagnier has "disputed any such support" for homeopathy.

When we investigate this source, we find that it is a TV show episode, the aim of which is to debunk homeopathy. The narrator says "none of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'"

The direct quote refers to extrapolating Montagnier's work to 'products'. On the wikipedia article, the quote is being misused to support claims that he disputes support for the PRACTICE and the THEORY of homeopathy. This is a critically important distinction. Montagnier is NOT disputing homeopathy, although he perhaps disputes using his work to support some specific, or non-specific, homeopathic PRODUCTS.

Ultimately is hard to tell the true meaning of what Montagnier was saying, since the quote from him is completely decontextualised, and it is also partial, and it is not clear what comment or question exactly the quote is made in response to, since the TV show never provide us with any of this information.

This simply cannot suffice as a source that Montagnier disputes support for homeopathy.

Furthermore, Montagnier may not be explicit about his stance on homeopathy, but he offered some insight into his stance in an interview with the peer-reviewed journal 'Science'. When he is asked if he supports homeopathy, he says "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecule". He also says "it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

On the whole, there is more evidence that Montagnier supports homeopathy than disputes it. If editors wish to claim that Montagnier disputes homeopathy, they should find a source for their claim.

2. The Wikipedia article takes a quote from the peer-reviewed journal 'Science', and randomly inserts a misleading comment in the middle of it, namely this comment- "He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy." This is not true. Montagnier was working within the dilution range normally used daily by homeopaths, for example, 10(-12) is a common homeopathic dilution. He says that they "lose the signal" at the "extremely high" end of the scale. Homeopathy uses dilutions both at the levels Montagnier was using, and higher. Montagnier found signals at some of the dilutions homeopaths use, but not at all the levels. That is what he was saying. Opining that "he did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" is an outright false statement. It would be far better to leave the direct quote from 'Science' as a full, unbroken quote, and remove the silly opinion that has been inserted in the middle of it that breaks the quote up and misrepresents the meaning of Montagnier's words.


3. Wikipedia page on Luc Montagnier says- "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".

There is no evidence whatsoever that Luc Montagnier was asked by the TV show "if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed". At no point does the TV show pose the question, or anything remotely like it, to Montagnier "Does your work provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths have claimed?" 41.215.151.113 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)mrsip

As I mentioned on my talk page, the Science interview is not peer-reviewed. Saying Science is a "peer reviewed journal" in this context is meaningless at best. You fail to mention above that Montagnier's "it’s not pseudoscience" quote was in reply to a different question, later in the interview, than the question about homeopathy and was in reply to a question about his own research. This is quote mining, whether intentional or not on your part. I agree with you that the "admit" language is non-neutral in the quote later on, and have boldly removed it while preserving the the quote. I do not see any discrepancy between defense of his results in the Science interview and his dispute of claims by homeopaths mentioned in the lede. Your speculation about what the Canadian show did or did not ask him isn't particularly helpful or likely to get much traction, and neither is your synthesis about dilutions not mentioned in the sources. Please note that Montagnier has been broadly construed by pseudoscientists as a supporter of homeopathy, but that does not mean that we are going to extend the falsehood to our article. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that you can just make up stuff on Wikipedia. Where does the TV show ask him that question? They don't, anyone who watches the video will see that. Wikipedia allows editors to just make stuff up, no need for a real reference or a source, you can use decontextualised half-baked quotes from biased TV shows to prove anything... so long as it conforms to the reigning dogma. And if you quote an interview from a peer-reviewed journal, an editor will come and use a link to a biased TV show and say that it's a more suitable source. Just ridiculous. I'm done with this now, this talk page stands as a record of the intellectual dishonesty of an established Wikipedia editor. Or perhaps, to quote Montagnier himself, the 'intellectual terror' of the establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.224.199 (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 41.84.224.199 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

UNESCO meeting

I'm not sure if and how this can be used, but it's a RS referring to other RS, which might also be used:

Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Luc Montagnier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


In the movie "House of Numbers" Montagnier expresses that the body can protect itself from HIV by its own means. This idea has not been communicated in his wikipedia's biography

In the movie "House of Numbers" Montagnier expresses that the body can protect itself from HIV by its own means. This idea has not been communicated in his wikipedia's biography. I think this is rather a controversial point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.158.137.24 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Luc Montagnier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

The "Research on electromagnetic signals from DNA" section consumes approximately half of the article text. Since Montagnier is undoubtedly a person with significant and quite legitimate scientific credits, dedicating this much prose to his involvement in a fringe topic is not only problematic w.r.t. WP:PROPORTION, but also WP:BLP.

I don't doubt at all that this topic received wide coverage, partly because Montagnier is a notable scientist, but the article's needs to be more balanced in this respect. I'd say the section should be significantly condensed. GregorB (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Current employment

I couldn't find any source on his current employment. The SJTU news is from ten years ago. Can anyone verify it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiuJiageng (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier header section

in the section about controversial research, I found that several of the links do not have to do with Luc Montagnier himself and do not make mention of him whatsoever (in the CBC link "Cure or Con?") and then another link is from a BLOG post...— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSOak22 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient Evidence Either for or Against Origin Hypotheses

The previous text said that there was “no evidence” for the lab leak hypothesis, which is not accurate- there is some evidence which is at least circumstantial. This is reflected in recent reliable sources.

I replaced with the following text:

“There is currently insufficient evidence to either prove or rule out the hypothesis that the virus escaped from a lab .[1]” JustinReilly (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

When there is only really shitty evidence that means nothing, scientists will says there is no evidence. That is the case here. The natural-origin explanation is the default, the lab leak explanation is a conspiracy theory. They are not born equal and should not be treated equally.
I reverted your edits because they slanted the arcile into a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please read WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
But there is circumstantial evidence supporting the lab leak theory, and thus the claim that there's "no evidence" is untrue. I think that at the very least the word "direct" needs to be added. Oooooooseven (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "no evidence" is actually drawn from scholarly publications, which is what we use to write Wikipedia. See: WP:NOLABLEAK. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Why not go with something like "There is no direct evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is human-made, and most scientists agree that the virus most likely spread to humans zoonotically"? That makes it clear what the predominant expert opinion is while still remaining accurate in a literal sense. Oooooooseven (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
No. That would be WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The specific theory Montagnier spread was that the virus was deliberately genetically engineered and released (as the article states very clearly and unambigiously). Scholarly sources (such as those cited at WP:NOLABLEAK) overwhelmingly reject this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Scholarly sources [..] overwhelmingly reject this sounds as if there are scholarly sources that embrace it. That sounds unlikely. Are there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's the few whackjobs here and there, but those are not appropriate for citing in Wikipedia anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
That is not what is written in 4.4: COVID-19 pandemic, which is the section that contains the sentence we've been discussing. The Montagnier theory mentioned in that section is just that the virus was created in a lab, possibly as part of an attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. The only part of the article that says Montagnier claimed that the virus was deliberately created is the lead, and it's unreasonable to expect readers to assume that the last sentence of the body of the article means something different than what it literally says because of a single sentence in the lead. Oooooooseven (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I went and actually looked at the article cited as a source for the claim that Montagnier "promoted the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2, the causative virus, was deliberately created and escaped from a laboratory," and I don't think it really says that. It says that he said that "the coronavirus did not originate in nature and was manipulated" and that "in the process of making the vaccine for AIDS, someone took the genetic material and added it to the coronavirus," but that sounds more like a claim of accidental creation than one of deliberate creation to me. Oooooooseven (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You don't "accidentally" add genetic material "in the process of making a vaccine"; unless you're so mind-boggingly negligent as to make conspiracy theorists look sane in comparison... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Deliberately adding genetic material to a virus isn't quite the same thing as deliberately creating a new virus unless the goal of adding the genetic material is to create a new virus, which does not appear to be what Montagnier claimed was the case. Oooooooseven (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
So, you think "creating a new virus" means "creating a new virus from scratch"? Assembling nucleotids one after the other? That does not make any sense. You don't know much about biology, do you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I feel like you're violating more than one of the guidelines for this talk page, but that aside: The distinction I'm trying to draw is one of intent, between adding genetic material to a virus for the sake of creating a new virus and adding genetic material to a virus in an attempt to develop a vaccine. Oooooooseven (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources (such as those which I've already mentioned, cited at WP:NOLABLEAK) do not seem to make any distinction about any intent behind the claim of genetic engineering: they dismiss it out of hand due to multiple reasons. The only variant they haven't ruled out completely is "natural sample which was collected and then accidentally released", but, set aside any discussion about how they are responding to that (not much more positively, but that's irrelevant here), that is clearly A) not genetic engineering AND B) not the theory advocated by Montagnier, however you spin it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that Montagnier's theory is true; I'm just saying that the argument the first sentence of the article's second paragraph attributes to Montagnier seems to be slightly different than his actual argument. It's admittedly a minor distinction (and all of this is separate from the more substantial issue I initially had with the article), but it's something I nonetheless thought worth bringing up for the sake of maximum accuracy. Oooooooseven (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling why is the natural origin the default when there is no definite evidence to support that hypothesis either? 2A02:A420:21:F0D1:80CC:EF0A:329D:8B7A (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I will not explain basic science to you. Wikipedia has rules about reliable sources, and we follow them.That is the end of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luc_Montagnier/Archive_1&oldid=1135131693"