Implications of Luc Montagnier’s Works Upon Scientific Understanding of Ultra Dilutions

Luc Antoine Montagnier is a French virologist and joint recipient with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

In 2009 he published a paper regarding detection of electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA (M. pirum and E. coli) in water that had been prepared using agitation and high dilutions, and similar research on electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by anti-retroviral therapy. While homeopaths claim his research as support for homeopathy, many scientists have greeted it with scorn and harsh criticism. Because the research used high dilutions, homeopaths claimed it supported homeopathy, even though it didn’t mention homeopathy or use ultra-high dilutions.

He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: “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.”

He did admit that he wasn’t working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: “We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10-18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal.”

Luc Montagnier’s observation that ‘high dilutions’ contain “water structures which mimic the original molecules.” is very important for homeopathy. But, he never tried to explain the exact molecular mechanism by which this ‘mimicking’ happens, and more important, did not take up the task of explaining the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘simila similibus curentur’.

Montaigner s observatios are very much relevant for the scientific understanding of homeopathy. It is very important that he could demonstrate some form of “information/energy/memory” that is retained in ultra high dilutions, even without the presence of a single molecule of original substance.
But the limitation of his work is that he did not go further to inquire what is the actual mechanism involved in this retaining of memory, but simply said it may be some “water structures that mimic the original molecules”!
Most important thing I see in his observations is the mention of possibility of some WATER STRUCTURES as the source of electromagnetic radiations that come from these ultra high dilutions. He also says these water structures MIMIC the original molecules. Actually this is the most relevant part of his work that has great implications upon homeopathy. He proved that ultra high dilutions are not NOTHING, but they contain WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC original molecules. We have to take this observation forward in finding the most wanted answer to the basic question of homeopathy, “what are the active principles of post-avogadro homeopathy drugs”. Thanks to Montaigner, now we can confidently say “it is the WATER STRUCTURES that mimic the drug molecules”.
Our next step is to find out the mechanism by which these WATER STRUCTURES are formed during the process of homeopathic potentization. MIT hypothesis can answer this question very well. Then we will have to explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these “water structures” produce a therapeutic effect in a way fitting to the principle of similia similibus curentur. MIT can explain this also. Of course these all are only in the hypothetical stage. We have prove this idea by scientific experiments. MIT team is already into this work.
What actually happened to montaigner’s work was that it fell into the hands of people propagating unscientific ENERGY MEDICINE theories. They took up ideas of “electromagnetic radiations” coming from ultra dilutions mentioned by montaigner, and used it to justify their absurd theories that homeopathy medicines act by some sort of mysterious “vibrations”. They totally ignored the statement of Montaigner that these electromagnetic radiations he detected in ultra high dilutions actually come from WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC the drug molecules.
I consider Luc Montaigner’s work as a great step in scientific understanding of high dilution therapeutics. We have to start from his idea of “water structures mimicking the original molecules”, which he actually considered as the source of electromagnetic radiations he observed emitting from ultra high dilutions.

What happened was that people interested in ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘dynamic’ interpretation of homeopathy actually hijacked his theory. Only because he said he could detect ‘electromagnetic signals’ showing the presence of ‘molecular memory of dugs’ in high dilutions, these theoreticians used it to justify their pseudoscientific concepts of ‘resonance’, ‘vibrations’, frequencies’, ‘drug transmissions’, ‘radionics’, ‘drug teleportation’ and the like they use in explaining homeopathy.

Luc Montagnier’s limitation lies in the fact that he could not understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’. If he could have explained the phenomenon he observed in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, instead of ‘mimicking’ and ‘vibrations’, the situation would have been entirely different. If he could have gone a bit forward and explained WATER CLUSTERS acting as the source of ‘electromagnetic signals’ as ‘molecular imprints’, he could have avoided the ‘occult’ homeopaths and ‘spiritual homeopaths hijacking and misusing his statements for their ulterior motives.

To be more exact, Montagnier should have said: “high dilutions of something are not nothing- hey are water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” Not mimics’ . That could have made a big difference for homeopathy.

According to Luc Montaigner, the ‘water structures’ formed in high dilutions are ‘mimics’ of original molecules. But in terms of modern molecular imprinting technology, ‘molecular imprints’ are 3d structures with configurations just complementary to original molecules. If we consider original molecules as ‘keys’, montaigner consider ‘nanostructures’ as duplicate keys. According to my concept, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘artificial key holes’ that could act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for original keys or keys similar to them. Molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configuration, exactly like a key hole binds to a key. Molecular imprinting produces artificial ‘key-holes’, not ‘duplicate keys.’ Once we understand this difference in perceptions, it would be easy for us to understand ‘similia similibus curentur’ scientifically.

Only ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ can explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, where potentized drugs are not acting similar to original drug molecules, but just as exact ‘opposites’. That is ‘similia similibus curentur’.

“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.”

Bnveneste also, similar to Montagnier, perceived potentized drugs as “water structures which mimic the original molecules”. Both of them were wrong.

I say, potentized drugs are “water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” I am trying to explain homeopathy on the basis of this “molecular imprint” concept.

In his article ‘DNA Between Physics and Biology’, Luc Montaigner explains about his famous experiment in which he used ‘nano-water structures’ mimicking specific dna fragments contained ‘ultra dilutions’ to induce in vitro synthesize of similar dna fragments using nucleotide primers and polymerase enzyme as follows:

“Now we undertake the most critical step: to investigate the specificity of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence. For this we add to the tube of signalized water all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase). The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. Indeed, a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected . We 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 clearly shows that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information…”

Instead of this vague theorizing about “water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information”, he could have explained this phenomenon in a more rational way, if he could understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in high dilutions.

According to my view, it is not the ‘electro magnetic resonance’ or ‘mimicking’ that induced dna synthesis in his experiments. Actually, the high dilutions of dna solutions he preapared contained ‘molecular imprints’ of specific dna fragments. When he added nucleotide primers and polymerase enzymes into this molecular imprinted water medium, molecular imprints could have held the nucleotide primers in the correct sequence and position similar to that of original dna fragment. Then, the polymeraze enzyme could have connected these primers to form dna molecules exactly similar to original one. Here, ‘molecular imprints’ acted as ‘templates’, and helped in arranging nucleotide primers in correct sequence by binding to them, due to the specific configurational affinity.

Since he had no any idea of molecular imprinting, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘electromagnetic resonance’, which led to ultra-scientific interpretations. This limitations helped the ‘energy medicine’ theorists to hijack and misuse the works of luc montaigner.

 

2 Comments

  1. Chandran Nambiar

    Since Luc Montaigner could not understand the scientific concept of ‘molecular imprinting’, he tried to explain the observed phenomenon using the concepts of ’emr resonance’. That only shows the limitation of his understanding.

    Each and every particle in this universe are ‘vibrating’, or exist in constant motion. This ‘motion’ is the primary form of existence of matter. When we subject any object for any form of spectroscopic studies, there will be specific pattern of light rays, depending up on absorption, reflection and refraction which indicates molecular level organization. When we subject potentized drugs for spectrosopy, the light patterns are found to be different from those of unpotentized water-alcohol mixture. That only indicates the presence of ‘supramolecular clusters’ formed by potentization. DNA will have specific spectum, molecular imprints of DNA will also have spectific spectrum. We can utilize spectroscopic studies of potentized drugs to sturdy the presence of molecular imprints in our potentized drugs.

    ‘Supra molecular nanostructures’ is an important topic of study with implications in in areas of nanotechnology, supramolecular chemistry, molecular imprinting in polymers etc. I was trying to explain homeopathic potentization from this perspective.

    Polymer-like supramolecular behavior of water and its capacity to form ‘supramolecular nanostructures’ through hydrogen bonding make water an appropriate medium for molecular imprinting. Through the process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, three dimensional configuration of individual drug molecules are imprinted into these supramolecular nanostructures of water as ‘nanocavities’, which can act as ‘artificial key-holes’ or ‘binding sites’ for the drug molecules as well as pathogenic molecules having simialar functional groups. This is the scientific explanation I provide for homeopathic potentization

Trackbacks

  1. Dana Ullman- Foremost Spokesman Of Pseudo-scientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories of Homeopathy « Dialectical Homeopathy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: