here is the original paper
Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences by Luc MONTAGNIER
http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=48070


and here are reeactions:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081


They do not explain what rationale prompted them to measure EMS or to dilute their samples. It was this electromagnetic phenomenon that they proceeded to investigate in the present study.

The study detected electromagnetic signals from diluted, agitated, and filtered solutions of Mycoplasma and E. coli bacteria. They postulate that some DNA sequences emit electromagnetic waves after excitation by the ambient electromagnetic background. Extracted DNA produced EMS signals similar to those produced by intact bacteria. DNAse treatment abolished the effect. They postulate a network of DNA nanostructures organized in a gel-like liquid crystal. Puzzlingly, they found no effects in low dilutions – but they came up with tortuous rationalizations as to why that might be (Self-inhibition? Interference? Inability to vibrate?). The effect was transferable to other lower dilutions of the same bacteria when the two solutions were shielded and kept close to each other for 24 hours.

There was a lot of background noise, but they say that positive signals could be differentiated over the background by higher frequency peaks. The measuring system they used does not immediately inspire confidence, since it was designed by Benveniste, infamous for winning two Ig Nobel prizes, the second one for allegedly sending the electromagnetic signatures of homeopathic water memories over telephone lines and the Internet. I don’t have the expertise to critique the physics or the methodology; but even assuming the results are valid, they tend to discredit homeopathy, not support it:


1.By filtration, they were able to determine the particle size of the components that were associated with positive results. There were particles of DNA present, in contrast to high homeopathic dilutions where no molecules of the original substance remain.

2.Homeopathy postulates effects at most dilutions, with increasing effects as the dilutions become greater. In this study, there were no effects at low dilutions. There were a series of positive effects at high dilutions but the effect size did not increase progressively as the dilution increased. At the highest dilutions, the effect vanished.

3.They talk about water structures and polymer formations, but acknowledge that these associations appear to be very short-lived. In this study they found that the effects lasted for several hours, sometimes up to 48 hours – but not longer. Homeopathic remedies are not administered within hours of their preparation. They supposedly remain effective for long periods. Most homeopaths say that homeopathic remedies do not require expiration dates and will remain effective indefinitely as long as they are properly stored.

The authors claim that the effects were only found in pathogenic bacteria, not in beneficial bacteria like probiotics. Maybe. It would be surprising if one physical phenomenon rather than several different physiologic ones could discriminate between pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria.



The authors engage in further unwarranted speculation:

we have detected the same EMS in the plasma and in the DNA extracted from the plasma of patients suffering of Alzheimer, Parkinson disease, multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

This statement is given without any supporting references. The data have apparently not been published. One wonders why.

They go on to say

This would suggest that bacterial infections are present in these diseases.

It would suggest to me that they really don’t know the significance of what they are apparently measuring.

The study can only be categorized as a preliminary study. It raises a lot of questions and will require independent replication (preferably studies of high enough quality to merit publication in a more prestigious journal with high standards and rigorous peer review) before we can place any confidence in its results.

Anyway, in vitro findings by themselves can’t ever validate homeopathy, even if they could demonstrate that water can remember what molecules were diluted out of it. They would still have to show that such memory translated to specific therapeutic effects on human physiology. 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.






.....


.....

Comments on the same page:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081


Ultimately, their claim is that they observe (relatively) high-frequency EM radiation from these preparations. After carefully reading the article, I am completely unconvinced that said observations are anything other than background.

1. There is no indication that backgrounds were measured, characterized, or controlled for in any systematic way. This critical and central piece of the experiment is addressed only with the brief statement that

In each experiment, the internal noise generated by the different pieces of the reading system was first
recorded (coil alone, coil with a tube filled with water).

– For starters, the reference to internal noise appears to indicate a complete unconcern with external background.

– The background readings are not presented at all. All by itself, this is a fatal flaw that renders the paper completely meaningless, as there is no way for the reader to judge the extent to which the purported results comport with the noise characteristics of the apparatus.

– There is no indication that the background characteristics were monitored over time – a very important requirement given that many sources of external EM radiation are transient.

– I would very much want to see monitoring of external background during the experiment itself – set up two sets of apparatus next to each other, place the sample in one, and compare results with the other.

– The assertion is made that figures 2c,d show the Fourier analysis of the background (which would still be grossly inadequate, but at least a start) but figures 2c,d are later stated to show samples. The caption agrees with the latter. So I can only conclude that the background results really weren’t shown at all.

– The authors claim that shielding the apparatus from background in a Faraday cage abolished the signal. This is a priori a strong indication that they were in fact measuring background. The blithe assumption that the measured signal is instead stimulated by external excitation requires vigorous defense and careful correction for the external background. This was not done at all.

– It was apparently required to use the laptop’s battery instead of a power cord in order to obtain positive results; this is another strong indicator that they were measuring background noise.

2. The sensitivity of the apparatus was apparently not characterized. The results are therefore uninterpretable. Exposure to known intensities of known frequency signals would simply be the necessary first step to determining that the apparatus works at all. Even that was not done.

3. No analysis of the signal-to-noise ratio AT ALL?!?!?!?!? Not even compared to the limited background testing they DID do? Even high school physics students are expected to make at least some genuflections in the direction of assessing uncertainties.

4. The apparatus is in principle plausible, but the details that would permit a reader to evaluate it are completely absent. Often new apparatus is presented in its own article in a methods journal – this is particularly true when the results obtained from it are so striking. I suppose it is possible that this was done in another article, in which case the lack of a clear citation is inexcusable. The closest thing I can see in the references is a patent, which doesn’t even come close to adequate (I looked it up; there’s no information anywhere near sufficient to evaluate its performance). There is also a citation to “Faseb Journal 10, A1479″. Such an article does not exist according to http://www.fasebj.org
– indeed, their search indicates no publications by Benveniste, Jurgens, or Aissa in 1996.

Overall, if this were a lab report from a college junior/senior level physics major lab course (the closest analog), it would rate a D at best. And that would be generous. At the professional level, the complete unconcern with background can only be described as gross incompetence.

This doesn’t even rise to the level of a preliminary study. When it comes right down to it, the entire paper is simply an unsubstantiated assertion.

# Telumon 20 Oct 2009 at 11:23 am
I agree with everything stated above on the physics. The paper states that the signals were at 1000 hz. Not Mhz, Thz or Ghz. Just plain hz. That is incredibly low for an electromagnetic wave. It has a wavelength of 300 kilometers, and I wonder how they even detected such low energy photons.

Also, it is notoriously difficult to purge all mycoplasma even from “sterile” equipment, particularly to which you are adding any sort of cells to.

“Thus, filtration of a culture supernatant of human lymphocytes
infected with Mycoplasma pirum, a microorganism of
about 300 nM in size, through filters of 100 nM or
20 nM porosities, yielded apparently sterile fluid. The
latter however was able to regenerate the original my-
coplasma when incubated with a mycoplasma negative
culture of human lymphocytes within 2 to 3 weeks.”

1) The filters were up to 200nm in size. It is not hard to imagine that there existed a few mycoplasma that were abnormally small.

This indicate that the “silent” low
dilutions are self-inhibitory, probably by interference of
the multiple sources emitting in the same wave length
or slightly out of phase, like a radio jamming.

1) Lol! So at low concentrations all the tiny structures magically become in phase?

My guess is that their singals are due entirely to a particular team member being near the apparatus with his cell phone, or something silly like that.

# daedalus2uon 20 Oct 2009 at 12:00 pm
I agree with Scott, he beat me to it. To me, it looks like just noise. Variable amounts of high frequency noise superimposed on top of pretty constant low frequency noise.

If you look at figure 5b, I can’t distinguish between NF, D2, D4, D7, and D12. D8, D9, D10 and D11 look identical also. To me, it looks like exactly the same low frequency noise signal with sometimes (and sometimes not) the exact same high frequency noise signal superimposed on it. Lots of electrical equipment will generate signals like this. Because the high frequency noise is in phase with the low frequency noise, I suspect electromagnetic noise, as from a transformer, power supply, or an induction motor.

They even say that without the low frequency background noise they don’t get any signal. If they need a background signal, they need to do their work in a shielded region and then deliberately impose a known background signal and not rely on ambient noise. There are many electrical systems that are extremely sensitive to noise. I have worked with some where just moving your hand while it was feet away from anything would produce a significant signal. If this is a real signal they can find it in a noise-free environment.

They report that they did all the serial dilutions and then did all the analysis. That means that the samples had variable lengths of time between when they were vortexed and when they were analyzed.

The type of signal the apparatus they are using can detect is a magnetic signal, not an electrostatic signal. However an electrostatic signal could affect their results by putting a DC bias on their amplifier via electrostatic induction. That going to a 12 volt powered computer reduces the noise suggests that a lot of it is from the power lines.

If vortexing is necessary, maybe it is bubbles from the vortexing. Maybe different amounts of surfactant from the filters is changing the characteristic bubble diameter. They don’t report results on filtered blank solutions. They say they did the tests in 3 different cities and say to look at the graphs to see how they are different, but they don’t tell which city which results were obtained in.