Talk:Corentin Louis Kervran/Archive 1

Minor changes and some Disatisfaction
I made a couple of minor changes in the first paragraph to improve some logic and precision. I added 3 references, including a 2012 review on biotransmutation, and two sources on cold fusion - a book and the replicated study that has gotten governments excited lately (ECAT). Explanation: the question of nuclear transmutation in inanimate matter at room temperature, pressure and speed is of course intimately linked to that of biological transmutation in vivo. We just imagine the organic mechanisms would be different. So I include two references on cold fusion - a book and a replicated study. For those that don't know, cold fusion devices are now being looked into by quite a few governments and companies and so on, as well as academics.

However I find the article unsatisfying. It is certainly not neutral and reads like boilerplate from the one of the 120 "Skeptical Guerillas", like a lot of wikipedia now. I am amazed that wikipedia allows this. Rather, it is a debasement of scientific process and of wikipedi, amounting to disinformation and evidence-sifting by non-experts. A more honest approach: get someone to describe this work, say that mainstream physics rejects the concept, and then at the end, we can put "The Skeptics Society regards this as pseudoscience and warns the public accordingly". That should cover your imperative, and then the public knows where their opinions are coming from. If you are not from this group, I deeply apologise and retract all but the beginning of this paragraph.

Nonetheless, I propose that this topic be covered by someone who knows about it (which is normal practice in science). Maybe one of the other editors? Also, a separate wiki-page on biological transmutation should be made. These ideas are not mainstream, but they are very important if true. We are talking about the interface of the standard model with biology: and that's a important topic. We not walking about the Face on Mars here. There is much stated evidence in the Talk page and in the edit history, and it is just not in the article, as the other editors state.

Here's the point and reason why these things are not "against the laws of physics": in conventional biochemistry, large energy barriers made by electromagnetic forces are made small by special spatio-electric configurations induced by enzymatic catalysis. In the proposed nuclear scenarios, the same thing is true, except the catalysis and various applied fields operate on the weak nuclear force barrier instead. So the conditions are not the same as in a Tokomak. (One of) the reasons why cold fusion was killed was that it was against the (usually very good) predictions of a low-order Hamiltonian used in high energy physics. But when many many protons are involved and coherent, the Hamiltonian is very high order and cannot be computed. Preparata's analysis shows the Lamb shift, small for single particles, getting much bigger for high dimensional coherent systems. This creates a positive feedback that stabilizes the coherence, also, he argues, in structured water domains such as occur in the cytoplasm. So to summarize the skeptics argument for them: biological transmutation and cold fusion are "impossible" because we can't compute big Hamiltonians.

Tony Bell, Neuroscience, Berkeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.156.13 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Have you read the work? Elemental Transmutations by Kervran is available in English and I have read it. I have a wide and deep knowledge of biology, chemistry and minerals and there can be no dispute that Kervran's work is valid. A NASA team studied and confirmed his work, and concluded that elemental transmutations are indeed common in living systems.

The scandal, is that modern science still clings to the belief that elements are immutable, and that people who have not read the work, and may not have the background to dispute it resort to the cheap technique of labelling this "junk science".

I believe this wilful blindness of science to Kervran's work will require the biggest retraction since it was eventually admitted that Galileo was right ant the earth is round.

Science will have to eat an awful lot of crow, and their vanity will not withstand it, so wilful blindness is their answer. But "the truth must out", and will in time. The cost to current beliefs will be huge, but the potential this offers can literally save the planet.

I hope wikipedia will have the wisdom not to delete this page.

Science Moose


 * Please provide a reference to that purported NASA study. --69.140.175.66 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete the page?
From Votes for deletion:


 * The page says in part: "showed that transmutation of elements does indeed occur in living organisms". This looks like junk science. 4 Google hits for "Corentin Louis Kervran". Kosebamse 20:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * If you google for both "Kervran" and "Corentin", not in that particular order, you get a few more. Plus, some of the sites also list the name "C. Louis Kervran". When I tried googling for the sequence c-louis-kervran instead, I got 313 sites. Wiwaxia 04:38, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * But what about the content? Kevran's achievements look like pure crackpottery to me (I've read some more about him at http://www.lasarcyk.de/kervran/index.htm, mostly in German, looks more useful than other sites. There are some more links at http://www.lasarcyk.de/kervran/resonanz.htm). I can't exclude that his research had some value, but it seems to be far from accepted or even widely discussed. Kosebamse 04:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see, according to my searching of Wikipedia, we HAVE articles for:
 * Cyril Burt
 * Erich von Däniken
 * Immanuel Velikovsky
 * So why not include this guy as well? Wiwaxia 05:15, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we add a few comment that this is work by a scientist which will certainly not be accepted by mainstream science (yet) or something like that?+++
 * This should be deleted or at least heavily modified. Statements like "...which showed that transmutation of elements does indeed occur in living organisms" cause the average layperson reading them to think 'Oh, yeah, OK, so gold turns to silver,' and "...fatal accidents from carbon monoxide poisoning when none was detectable in the air" gets people worrying about dangers they don't really face. It's perfectly plausible to have a person die of CO poisoning and then have it dissipate enough that it's not detectable, especially by the instruments used in the first half of the century.  Having an article that contains misinformation, even with a disclaimer that it is not 'widely accepted' runs the risk of misinforming others who do not read the entire article.  The first paragraph also depicts the concept as being on the same level as prominent scientific theories -- when it is not. -- TravelingDude 13:59, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[comment] Kervran did find the supposed cause for the poisoning (see the book) so people can just take their precautions. And the dangers are real, several workers died. And he did some very serious investigations and control experiments to prove his theory. I suggest you read the book and learn about the theory, which you obviously haven't, before commenting on it (that's good science you know...). [/comment]

Delirium thought this looked reasonable NPOV now, so I removed from VfD and added an NPOV dispute header. Remove when everyone is happy :) Martin 13:31, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lest one think Nobel nomination means anything (as I did for 26 seconds =/), remember that ‘President’ God-made-me-do-it Shrubadub and Phony Liar have been nominated for Peace at least twice. “[Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute Geir] Lundestad said many people wrongly believed being a ‘Nobel prize nominee’ was itself a kind of honor. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have made it to the list…” Kwantus 16:45, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Hell, Henry Kissinger WON the Nobel Peace prize. GangofOne 2 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

New dispute header
Sorry, I re-inserted the dispute header, see for example:
 * was a scientist - his formal education and qualification should be explained, otherwise was an autodidact or the like would be better.
 * Kervran was nominated for the 1975 Nobel Prize in Physiology. - as this has no signifance as explained above, it should be deleted or annotated

Also, considering that nearly all WWW refernces are in Wikipedia+Mirrors, perhaps restarting VfD would be best.

Pjacobi 12:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed the dispute header since the Nobel Prize item was removed and Was a scientist is acceptable. Do you need three letters and a good academic pedigree to be a scientist? No. There are plenty of predoctoral students (heck even secondary school students) who you would be hard-pressed to not call a scientist. --Takometer 10:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newer POV header
This article lacks a critical discussion of the work. Sounds like it has been written by the "I want to believe" crowd. Could someone with knowledge of the topic convert this into an article deserving of an encyclopaedic entry? --69.140.175.66 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Junk Science and Nobel Prizes
Rebuttal:Junk Science

Evidently the writer who made the comment, "Junk Science," made a prejudiced comment based his value systems without further research on his part.

I doubt if this writer has read any of his Louis Kervran's writings (I have both in translation and in the original French). As a medical researcher, I have seen practical applications of his work (by Medical Doctors in Santa Barbara, CA, USA) in which his "junk science" worked in real world situations, empircal as this may be, where conventional medicine had not. These were individual cases, however and not clinical trials.

Clinical trials to prove or disprove Kervran's theories would be unlikely as a pharmaceutical company could not receive a use patent for the substances to be tested (Potassium, Manganese, or Silicon).

As to Nobel Prizes:

Any of the six international prizes awarded annually by the Nobel Foundation for outstanding achievements in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and economics and for the promotion of world peace.

One can argue the merits of the "peace" prize as to prior nominees and to their backgrounds. This does not detract that in the field of science to be nominated is not only an honor, but reflects a considerable amount of scutiny on the potential recipients work. How many US Universities in their catalogs list the names of Nobel candidates as reasons to attend their campuses?

And lastly, as to Autodidacts or Self Taught individuals, does this make the scientist's work any less relevant or valuable?

Remember, when you use an invention of Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, or the Wright Brothers that these "scientists" were by and large self taught.


 * I agree. Science is not about pedigrees. It's about employing the scientific method to discover how nature behaves. The primary argument against Kervran's work is not any lack of reproducibility of his experiments, but the lack of a theoretical framework within which to adequately explain them. When (not if) the truth about biological transmutation is finally revealed to the world, it's going to blow the doors off of modern physics (including quantum mechanics) and chemistry, as it should. Instead of building ever larger particle accelerators, physicists should be joining with molecular biologists in trying to figure out just what is going on inside living cells that allows them to transmute the elements without conventional nuclear reactions.


 * I would also add that George Ohsawa and Masashiro Torii, Professor of the Musashino Institute of Technology, with several scientists, achieved the transmutation of Na (sodium) to K (potassium) by the following method, first achieved on June 21, 1964, in Japan. In this experiment, one electric discharge vacuum tube with two poles was used. A sealed opening in the middle of the tube allowed oxygen to be introduced at will. The length of the vacuum tube was 20 cm and the diameter 2 cm. Electric poles of several different metals were tested. The power of electricity used in this experiment was 60 watts. First, 2.3 mg of Na was inserted and sealed in the vacuum tube, and electricity was started running through the tube. The sodium was ionized by the electricity and glowed yellow. About thirty minutes later, 1.6 mg of O (oxygen) was introduced, and a second later, the ionized Na changed into ionized K, changing the color from yellow to violet. This result was examined carefully by authoritative testing agencies, and the same experiments were performed repeatedly, yielding the same results. This is proof that nuclear fusion can and does occur at low temperatures and energy levels. I challenge any skeptics to attempt to reproduce this experiment before rejecting Kervran's work. Why is this easily reproducible experiment not included in any university science textbooks? oward (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebutting the Rebuttal: While a pharmaceutical company couldn't patent calcium, it could make money transmuting other, more valuable elements, once the process of transmuting to calcium is known. It could also make money orally or intravenously introducing the transmutation chemicals as "medication".


 * To the original poster, Kevran's work can be easily verified. Take some bone cells. Some of them should be burned in a specialized tube. Perform atomic mass spectroscopy. Measure the proportion of all K isotopes to all Ca isotopes. Give them a diet with poor amounts of calcium but high in Potassium. Measure again.This has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies. Vmelkon (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Scrutiny by "real" science.
Some notes on the work of Louis Kervran

Louis Kervran: La Revue Generale des Sciences Paris, of July 1960 Director of Conferences at the University of Paris

Transmutation Biologiques (Maloine, Paris 1962).

These publications were received with scepticism by some physicists because such transmutations were not explainable within the laws of physics then admitted.

Among the scientists to test his hyphothesis were Prof. Dr.Hisatoki Komaki, chief of the Laboratory of Applied Microbiology at a Japanese University, Prof. Baranger, Head of the Laboratory of Chemical Biology in the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris. J.E. Zundel, at that time Director of a paper company having a chemical analysis laboratory, pointed out that in germinating oats, there was an increase of Calcium of sometimes more that 100% in a medium containing no calcium. From where was this Calcium derived ? Kervran suggested from Potassium, because of a decrease of Potassium (K) quantitatively equal to the increase in Calcium (Ca).

After many experiments, hundreds of analyses of tens of thousands of grains or plants J.E. Zundel (then Chemical Engineer of the Polytechnicum School of Zurich) confirmed these findings in a lecture in 1971 at the French Academy of Agriculture (Bull No. 4, 1972). He had then used chemical and physical methods of analysis. Later in 1979, Zundel, using the mass spectrometer at C.N.R.S (the Microanalysis Laboratory of the French National Scientific Research Centre), and neutron activation mass analysis at the Swiss Institute for Nuclear Research in Villigen (Aargau), confirmed the increase for Calcium of 61% + or - 2% (average for both laboratories) that is absolutely beyond any statistical dispersion. (There was also an increase of 291% for Phosphorus and 36% for Sulphur). See the article - 'Transmutation of the Elements in Oats' in The Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 3, July/August 1980.

Recently a possible explanation for this phenomenon within the framework of modern physics has been evolved by French physicist Oliver Costa de Beauregard, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Institut de Physique Theorique Henri Poincare (Faculty of Sciences, Paris) who is also Director of the Centre National de la Reserche Scientifique (C.N.R.S.). Costa de Beauregard suggests that such transmutations neither takes place through strong interactions, nor through electromagnetic forces, but through the weak interaction. This takes place through the neutral current of the intermediate vector boson, the so called Zo, particle recently discovered by particle physicists. Kervran's reaction for a biological transmutation from Potassium (K) to Calcium (Ca) in germinating oats is thus explained as being Initiated by neutrino capture (from cosmic rays) and the weak interaction follows mediated by the Z, neutral current (the Zo probably existing as a virtual particle)


 * The cross section of neutrino capture is far too low to explain anything. --Pjacobi 19:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * _/ see Complements to the theoretical study of Weak Energy Interactions applied to some Transmutations in Kervran 1979 (here)
 * on capturing/effective section (Lunarian 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Keep the Page, part two.
The above comments bring to mind the curious case of an obscure 19th Century Italian Medical Doctor. Doctor Biffaro observed the clotting of blood, and hypothesised that a yet unseen cell, involved in an undiscovered process was responsible. After proposing such a preposterous idea, he spent the rest of his life as the object of ridicule. Indeed his colleages used the term "Biffaro Cell" which became synonomous to our "Junk Science" term of today as a derogatory comment. Doctor Biffaro did not live long enough to see his own vindication.

The Biffaro cell is now known as the blood platelete.

Conventional wisdom is to attack anything that is not status quo or explainable.

I would propose that the page on C. L. Kevran be re-written (and add his Curriculum Vitae) to clarify that his area of research resulted from an obsevation of a previously unknown phenomena, in which minerals in plants changed under controlled conditions, which is unexplainable (even today). As it is currently, the article might mislead the reader into thinking Kervran's work was in alchemy. Under the proper conditions elements can be transformed, i.e, hydrogen into helium or calcium into iron in a nuclear furnace such as a star.

I also agree with the above anonymous poster that a Nobel Prize nomination in Science is not something to be easily dismissed.

Renshen

Unverifiable information
I've removed the sentence
 * Kervran was nominated for the 1975 Nobel Prize in Physiology.

as being inherently unverifiable. Information about Nobel Prize nominations is kept sealed for 50 years, so the earliest that this could be verified is in 2025. --Carnildo 04:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biological transmutation
I have been studying the literature on biological transmutations for some years, and I am still extremely skeptical of Kervran's published works. However, last year I was fortunate to attend the ICCF 11 (cold fusion) conference. There I met the Ukrainian nuclear physicist Vladimir (V.I.) Vysotskii and obtained a copy of his book (co-authored with Alla (A.A.) Kornilova) "Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems." (Mir, Moscow, 2003, ISBN 5-03-003647-4, in English and Russian. I have only found it available from the 'Infinite Energy Magazine' website: ) This book details the most convincing experimental evidence I have yet discovered. Their proposed mechanism was equally pursuasive. Nevertheless, Vysotskii had a problem with Kervran's lack of experimental rigour (i.e. poor use of controls) and his lack of understanding of nuclear physics. The same criticisms have been directed towards Komaki. Vysotskii and Kornilova are not alone in believing in the phenomenon, but not in the prophet, Kervran. Even so, Vysotskii and Kornilova's work should only be considered as fringe science. I would not have a problem with Kervran's work as being considered pseudoscientific. But that is not to doubt his success as a publicist. The first 15 "biological transmutation" articles all refer to Kervran. The vast majority of the other 1,285 results are sites that link to pages refering to Kervran and has work. Therefore I propose that a seperate "biological transmutation" article be written that links to this page. --Davidc 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

_/ Strange that you should consider Kervran's work as psuedoscience. Reading both Kervran's work and approaches such as "Identifying pseudoscience" in the Wiki on Pseudoscience, or Thomas Khun on the nature of scientific revolution. I find such a conclusion ...not very bright. Are we not looking on a question about scientific theory documented with an impressive array of experimental results backed up by expert institutes ? Need we shout "foul" because the prospective answer is somewhat unsettling ? (Lunarian 12:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Too much evidence
I've been studying Kevrans work for a number of years also, and I'm quite certain he's right. There are many other things I've come across that seem to comfirm his discovery, like Ohsawa's successful experiments in the transmutation of Na into K (Na + O :=: K)

Also the fact that his theory can explain a lot of anormalities in nature, things that conventional chemistry cannot explain, indicates this.

Some of the research on cold fusion also have revealed unexpected low energy transformations of elements.

=
It's easy to recognize your "authoritative" postings because you are the only one who does not sign his stuff. Kervran's "findings" were NOT verified by NASA. If you have any references to the contrary, provide them here rather than arguing by reference to authority alone. We're discussing science, not law or "nutritional counseling."

=
Who are you talking to? I've never said anything about NASA anywhere (I'm not Science Moose).

Nuclear Physics consideration
The transmutation of chemical elements must take place at the level of the atomic nuclei, so it is not a chemical process in the strict sense (chemistry concerns the electrons orbiting the atoms). It is well established that such a processes involves much higher energies than can be afforded in biological activities. For example, initiating a fusion reaction of 23Na with 16O would require a very large temperature (millions of degrees at least I would say) to overwhelm the Coulomb repulsion between the two nuclei; each one of such reactions would release about 20 MeV in the form of gamma rays, which should have some drastic effects upon the surroundings. Such considerations make Kervran's theories untenable, and that is why they are not accepted by the scientific community, even if he was very skilled at letting the public buy them. --Philipum 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

_/This argument was answered by O.Costa de Beauregard in "Note Finale" (Marlotte, le 7-12-1974) appended to "Preuves en Biologie de Transmutations a Faible Energie" (Maloine ed, 1975 pp 285-298), preceded by Kervran's summary of his correspondance with Costa de Beaugerard "Nos travaux devant la physique theorique classique" (op.cit. pp 263-283). Juli 1974 the two scientists were discussing the confirmation (1974) of Steven Weinberg's neutral current in relation to the "Kervran effect", as the result of Corentin Louis' experiments had by then become known (by obscure aficionados, wikifreakies avant la lettre). Costa de Beauregard expressed in his pages his remaining scepticism for some of Kervran's earliest explanations ("science fiction"), but then he continued to explain why he thought Kervran might well be right. He refered to Corentin Louis Kervran as an expert in Work Medecine, Hygiene and Agriculture: biochimiste parfaitement qualifié (perfectly qualified biochemist). So...the question is not whether Kervran is a scientist, the question is how are we to give him the lemma he deserves. A curricullum vitae is most needed.
 * (Lunarian 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Nevertheless, Ohsawa and Kushi confirmed Kervran's theory experimentally by transmuting Na into K ( Na + O => K) in a vacuum tube. Many other experiments have produces similar results.

Also remember that Kervran's theory can explain a lot of abnormal phenomena in nature which cannot be explained by conventional chemistry.

Chemistry is enough to create carbon monoxyde. No need for transmutations
The article cites carbon monoxyde poisoning as evidence of transmutations. But it only takes carbon, oxygen and a bit of chemistry to create carbon monoxyde. So why would transmutation be needed ? Please provide more explanations in the article. Pcarbonn 11:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

-/The details are described by Kervran in "Preuves en Biologie de Transmutations a Faible Energie" (Maloine, 1975) pp62-65. Not mentioned are the circumstances in which the accidents (1955) occurred. Autopsy reports were communicated to Kervran showing CO (oxyde de carbone) poisoning. There was no CO present to be inhaled as was shown by tests at the work-site (unspecified in the text) where fellow workers at the same tasks (again unspecified) showed severe signs of CO poisoning, some close to lethal level. Maybe the accidents involved industrial welding since Kervran at first speculated that perhaps a molecule of N2 activated by iron brought to incandescence transformed into a molecule CO. In any case, and after close monitoring over several years the fact remained that bloodsamples showed oxyhemoglobine without dosable trace of CO in the respired air.
 * "No explanation was attempted.(...) The dissociation of N2 in C+0 apparantly only took place in the crossing of the membrane of the red globule; the chemical combination of C and O immediately following." (Kervran)

pp64-65 in op.cit. give a detailed description of the postulated sub-molecular mecanism whereby 2.(7)N changes to (6)C+(8)O through the displacement of a proton at low energie. (Lunarian 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

By The Way...
Students who want to investigate the state of science relevant to the Kervran debate do well to expand their horizon to the field of the epidemiology of radiation poisoning. They might find the debate at the "limits" of science extremely illuminating. They might even be tempted to dedicate a Wiki to Professor Alice Stewart (European Committee on Radiation Risks) who investigated the effects of low-dose radiation on child cancer.


 * Start with: Gayle Greene "The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation" Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999.


 * Report of ECRR dedicated to Alice Stewart

(Lunarian 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
 * review of the G. Greene book on Stewart --GangofOne 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed ref

 * User:JzG removed the following by this edit


 * http://www.rexresearch.com/kervran/kervran.htm#p2c2 Kervran's evaluation
 * http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm

this was in relation to:
 * Solomon Goldfein: Report 2247, Energy Development from Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems -U.S.A.M.E.R&D.C.- DDC No AD AO 56906 : "It was concluded that elemental transmutations were indeed occurring in life organisms and were probably accompanied by net energy gain". S.Goldfein)
 * In May 1978 a report [] was issued by the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command,Fort Belvoir, Virginia, proposing Magnesium adenosine triphosphate, located in the mitochondrion of the cell, as a provider of energy for the effects observed by Kervran and Komaki.

J. D. Redding 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why were these removed? It contained the full text of the report also available here: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA056906

and here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978army.reptR....G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.224.122 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Revisions
This article is probably ripe for deletion for lack of notability. I will not push for deletion although I won't oppose it. In stead I will attempt to revise and wikify the page with special consideration to wp:fringe.--OMCV (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

English Edition Differences
I heard there are differences in the English translations of his books with the same title. Is it true? Maybe it should be mentioned in the article.

Ted 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:6176:95AF:D85D:D9C1 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Uh, since translations are copyrighted of course translations by different translators will differ. This is not unexpected and there is no need to point this out. Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)