Are Viruses Demons?

a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, he should have someone else reproduce it to confirm the validity of the experiment.

But, he essentially reproduced Kazanceheyev's experiment described in the OP. An EM signal from the virus caused the host on the other end to receive the signal, and propagate a virus with the same DNA coding sequence in the other vial that contained the proper nucleotides and enzymatic machinery (mimicking what the monomers and machinery of a real-life host cell):

"For this all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. The result was that a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected. It was further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98 % identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12)..."

originally posted by: Bedlam

You think viruses walk?

The ancients, just like they did not have "virus" in their vocabulary, would not have "transmits electromagnetically" in their vernacular. So walketh was used in its place, other translations use "goes through" rather than walketh.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, he should have someone else reproduce it to confirm the validity of the experiment.

But, he essentially reproduced Kazanceheyev's experiment described in the OP.

MAYBE. There's a lot of differences. Differences which a careful experimenter would have dealt with.

An EM signal from the virus caused the host on the other end to receive the signal, and propagate a virus with the same DNA coding sequence in the other vial that contained the proper nucleotides and enzymatic machinery (mimicking what the monomers and machinery of a real-life host cell):

That's a long chain of barely supportable assumptions and leaps, though. What he's actually got is an odd low frequency EM signal and possibly contamination.

"For this all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. The result was that a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected. It was further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98 % identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12)..."

RIghty-right. And what does Montagnier work with in his labs, yes, HIV sequences. Now, had he teleported something more random, non repeating and a sequence that does not occur in that lab normally, I'd be more impressed. Or, if he'd done the thing properly, his experiment would have involved teleporting numerous randomly chosen DNA fragments, with the experimenters blinded to what was in each sample. Also given the propensity of PCR to reproduce tiny contaminants, they should have had more random null samples to see if their glassware or reagents were contaminated.

The ancients, just like they did not have "virus" in their vocabulary, would not have "transmits electromagnetically" in their vernacular. So walketh was used in its place.

Or not, as the case is.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: cooperton

"For this all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. The result was that a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected. It was further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98 % identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12)..."

RIghty-right. And what does Montagnier work with in his labs, yes, HIV sequences. Now, had he teleported something more random, non repeating and a sequence that does not occur in that lab normally, I'd be more impressed. Or, if he'd done the thing properly, his experiment would have involved teleporting numerous randomly chosen DNA fragments, with the experimenters blinded to what was in each sample. Also given the propensity of PCR to reproduce tiny contaminants, they should have had more random null samples to see if their glassware or reagents were contaminated.

I understand what you're saying, and he definitely should have some external lab test it to avoid contamination suspicion. Although, I am giving Montagnier the benefit of the doubt for the time being. You sound like you are with it in terms of logical deduction etc, but the guy won a nobel prize, I think he deserves consideration at the very least. It will be interesting to see the results of replications.

You've been a pleasantly, and at times unpleasantly, challenging interlocutor, Mr. Bedlam

a reply to: cenpuppie

Damn virii, hemorrhaging my cellar!