Can Our DNA Electomagnetically Teleport Itself?

2013-08-16

Vatic Note:  Now this is a most interesting, in fact, the most  interesting theory about DNA that I have ever heard or read.    Because the science has not been peer reviewed yet, I decided to put up both sides of the issue. The counter to this follows it below.

I will watch for the results of tested experiments associated with his paper, from his peers and let you know the results.  But think of the implications for this if, like homeopathic medicine, this can be done?  Oh, my word……. lol  Read and decide for yourselves.  Like I have said, I am not a scientist. Its more of a hobby for me.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_genoma38.htm
by Clay Dillow, Bibliotecapleyades
 

January 13, 2011

 

from PopSci Website

 

 

 

DNA Teleportation Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier describes a phenomenon

 

in which DNA emits electromagnetic signals of its own construction,

 

“ghost DNA” that can be mistaken by enzymes as the real deal and replicated in another place.

 

Essentially, it’s DNA teleportation. Montagnier, et al.
 

 

A Nobel prize winning scientist who shared the 2008 prize for medicine for his role in establishing the link between HIV and AIDS has stirred up a good deal of both interest and skepticism with his latest experimental results, which more or less show that DNA can teleport itself to distant cells via electromagnetic signals.

 

 

 

If his results prove correct, they would shake up the foundations upon which modern chemistry rests. But plenty of Montagnier’s peers are far from convinced.

The full details of Montagnier’s experiments are not yet known, as his paper has not yet been accepted for publication. But he and his research partners have made a summary of his findings available.

 

 

 

Essentially, they took two test tubes – one containing a fragment of DNA about 100 bases long, another containing pure water – and isolated them in a chamber that muted the earth’s natural electromagnetic field to keep it from muddying the results. The test tubes were housed within a copper coil emanating a weak electromagnetic field.

Several hours later, the contents of both test tubes were put through polymerase chain reactions to identify any remnants of DNA – a process that subjected the contents to enzymes that would make copies of any DNA fragments they found. According to Montagnier, the DNA was recovered from both tubes even though the second should have only contained water.

Montagnier and his team say this suggests DNA emits its own electromagnetic signals that imprint the DNA’s structure on other molecules (like water).

 

 

 

Ostensibly this means DNA can project itself from one cell to the next, where copies could be made – something like quantum teleportation of genetic material, a notion that is spooky on multiple levels.

Naturally, there is plenty of skepticism to go around regarding these findings, ranging from outright dismissal to measured doubt.

 

 

 

Indeed, it’s a pretty radical notion:

 

DNA replicating itself through “ghost imprints” rather than the usual cellular processes.

 

More details will emerge when the paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, as it is likely to be.

 

 

 

The findings will then have to be repeated in multiple independent studies to be considered valid, something that will take some time. In the meantime, expect these findings to draw equal parts intrigue and skeptical scrutiny.

 

 

 Vatic note:  Then we have this side of the issue

 by Andy Coghlan
Magazine issue 2795

 

12 January 2011

 DNA was only recovered if the original solution of DNA – whose concentration has not been revealed – had been subjected to several dilution cycles before being placed in the magnetic field.

 

 

In each cycle it was diluted 10-fold, and “ghost” DNA was only recovered after between seven and 12 dilutions of the original. It was not found at the ultra-high dilutions used in homeopathy.

Physicists in Montagnier’s team suggest that DNA emits low-frequency electromagnetic waves which imprint the structure of the molecule onto the water.

 

 

 

This structure, they claim, is preserved and amplified through quantum coherence effects, and because it mimics the shape of the original DNA, the enzymes in the PCR process mistake it for DNA itself, and somehow use it as a template to make DNA matching that which “sent” the signal (DNA Waves and Water).

 

“The biological experiments do seem intriguing, and I wouldn’t dismiss them,” says Greg Scholes of the University of Toronto in Canada, who last year demonstrated that quantum effects occur in plants.

 

Yet according to Klaus Gerwert, who studies interactions between water and biomolecules at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany,

 

“It is hard to understand how the information can be stored within water over a timescale longer than picoseconds.”
 
“The structure would be destroyed instantly,” agrees Felix Franks, a retired academic chemist in London who has studied water for many years.

 

Franks was involved as a peer reviewer in the debunking of a controversial study in 1988 which claimed that water had a memory (see far below “How ‘ghost molecules’ were exorcised”).

 

“Water has no ‘memory’,” he says now. “You can’t make an imprint in it and recover it later.”

 

Despite the skepticism over Montagnier’s explanation, the consensus was that the results deserve to be investigated further.

 

 

 

Montagnier’s colleague, theoretical physicist Giuseppe Vitiello of the University of Salerno in Italy, is confident that the result is reliable.

 

“I would exclude that it’s contamination,” he says. “It’s very important that other groups repeat it.”

 

In a paper last year (Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, DOI: 10.1007/s12539-009-0036-7), Montagnier described how he discovered the apparent ability of DNA fragments and entire bacteria both to produce weak electromagnetic fields and to “regenerate” themselves in previously uninfected cells.

 

 

 

Montagnier strained a solution of the bacterium Mycoplasma pirum through a filter with pores small enough to prevent the bacteria penetrating. The filtered water emitted the same frequency of electromagnetic signal as the bacteria themselves.

 

 

 

He says he has evidence that many species of bacteria and many viruses give out the electromagnetic signals, as do some diseased human cells.

Montagnier says that the full details of his latest experiments will not be disclosed until the paper is accepted for publication.

 

“Surely you are aware that investigators do not reveal the detailed content of their experimental work before its first appearance in peer-reviewed journals,” he says.

 

 How ‘ghost molecules’ were exorcised
The latest findings by Luc Montagnier evoke long-discredited work by the French researcher Jacques Benveniste.

 

 

 

In a paper in Nature (vol 333, p 816) in 1988 he claimed to show that water had a “memory“, and that the activity of human antibodies was retained in solutions so dilute that they couldn’t possibly contain any antibody molecules (New Scientist, 14 July 1988, p 39).

Faced with widespread skepticism over the paper, including from the chemist Felix Franks who had advised against publication, Nature recruited magician James Randi and chemist and “fraudbuster” Walter Stewart of the US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, to investigate Benveniste’s methods.

 

 

 

They found his result to be “a delusion”, based on a flawed design.

 

 

 

In 1991, Benveniste repeated his experiment under double-blind conditions, but not to the satisfaction of referees at Nature and Science. Two years later came the final indignity when he was suspended for damaging the image of his institute. He died in October 2004.

 

That’s not to say that quantum effects must be absent from biological systems. Quantum effects have been proposed in both plants and birds.

 

 

 

Montagnier and his colleagues are hoping that their paper won’t suffer the same fate as Benveniste’s.

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s