Talk:Luc Montagnier

New Article
In 2015, Montagnier published another article in the journal "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine", titled "Transduction of DNA information through water and electromagnetic waves". http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072

He seems to take his controversial idea one step further: By converting a digitzed file to electromagnetic signals, next to a tube of water, DNA is, according to the paper, kind of teleported. Such that TAQ Polymerase can "read" the template apparently from water – that has never seen the template DNA. Very strange indeed. Maybe a reference to this latest work could be added to the article, if relevant. A free pre-print of the article is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01620v1.pdf 92.225.251.205 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That article presents no actual data. It only refers to his two papers published in 2009, and makes grand claims while not presenting any data. A mention could be made, but with the caveat that there is no evidence in the paper to support his claim. I'm honestly baffled at how that paper managed to be published. My only guess is that the editor was star-struck by his name and never actually read the paper. 159.92.238.60 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New claim by him seems to be that Covid-19 was deliberately made but accidentally released. Need a French speaker to confirm that this is his opinion, but if so, then it is relevant to his wikipedia entry.

"The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic which has already killed more than 120,000 people in the world is a manipulated virus, accidentally released from a Chinese laboratory in search of an AIDS vaccine. "

Archived: http://archive.is/vuzhZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2418:EC01:6D8C:5629:AA53:1C85 (talk • contribs)


 * We are not wasting time with that paranoid conspiracy theory. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"that paranoid conspiracy theory" Well that didn't age well. 95.53.212.163 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of criticism (Coronavirus)
Recently an IP added to section Luc_Montagnier a refutation of the subject's assertion re: man-made. This was reverted a minute laterwith summary "Bad source".

Today I came across the same cited link on a "Fact Check" section of a news summary site, news.google.com, and came here to add that.

I've restored the text asking the reverter to explain more. Here is a good place. Shenme (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the material being added, I'm asking for a better source to be used in a BLP criticism. I saw that you disagreed, and decided to let it go. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Alas, a couple of days later and as their first (and only) edit, a new user reverted again. Not you, for your reason of distrust of the source, but some other defender of reputations. Oh well, off to take my 5 grams of vitamin C... Shenme (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the page states "However this was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic." in response to his claims about the origin of the corona virus. However, the given source is the official Chinese State media , and searching for an excerpt on Google gives you tons of other Chinese media outlets, some of which are definitely not trustworthy (check other news reports there). As China is being accused in this case, I suggest adding "as reported by Chinese state-run press agency" or adding another source. Torquan (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delfraissy is alive and he could deny that he said that, if he did not say that. So the issue is moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really a good justification for using a propaganda outlet of a dictatorship as a source. That does not feel like the correct way to handle this.
 * Still, given Montagnier's track record, they are probably right, so I looked for better sources. How about this one? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be edited/deleted asap
Posted under the "Coronavirus pandemic" heading, towards the bottom of the page, on Luc Montagnier's Wiki-page:

"However, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted on May 11, 2021 that he is no longer convinced that the COVID-19 pandemic originated naturally. [50][improper synthesis?]"

"Reference: [50]"Why is Anthony Fauci hedging on the origins of the coronavirus?". Retrieved 25 May 2021."

If you read the transcript of the source, or watch and listen to the CNN news report, Fauci clearly states that he is not convinced...; Not that, "he is NO LONGER convinced", as it shows on Luc Montagnier's Wiki-page. This needs to be changed asap, as it insinuates that Fauci has had a change of position on the matter. OptimusComposite84 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not what he said, Optimus. - He was asked about the natural origins and said it could have been (natural), or it could have been something else. He wants to know 'what was going on in China'. So from what I gather he does not believe it was deliberate, however, 'it could have been something else' surely suggests belief in a possible accidental lab leak. Especially given the WHO's failure to locate any animal reservoir (I cannot provide the YouTube link here. Search -> Youtube -> Poynter Fauci. Timestamp 11:48). Maximum70 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

False balance and synthesis
This is related to this proposed change. This editorial-style NYT article did not mention HIV, AIDS or Montagnier. It argues that belief in a lab leak was popularized, yet still ends with a "we don't know". Montagnier's claim that SARS-CoV-2 was human engineered including with the insertion of HIV genes is not considered credible by the scientific community. The proposed sentence seems to attempt to balance this and suggest that, well, maybe Montagnier's right. This fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GEVAL. Moreover, the source's conclusion was somewhat misrepresented, as it doesn't propose that there's a scientific consensus that a lab leak is plausible (even less that it would be an engineered virus). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re mentioning Montagnier's specific claims, it would be difficult to find anything specifically referring to these, as his comments came at the height of the semi-scientific/media impassioned rejection of the lab leak theory in 2020, and thus attracted attention then, but in the current scientific/context context is no longer news. I do not think the article should hint that "Montagnier's right", but the paragraph as it stands now (given that another editor put your changes back in), hints that the lab leak theory is wrong and thus leans toward impeaching Montagnier on the wrong terms. What about something like this instead:

In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 might have been the result of a laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
 * Brycehughes (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Contrasting with the current text for clarity and archives:

In 2020, Montagnier argued that COVID-19 was man-made in a laboratory and that it might have been the result of an attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. His allegation came after the United States had launched a probe into whether the virus came from a laboratory. According to Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally."[47] This was described as "a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science" by Jean-Francois Delfraissy, an immunologist and head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic.[48] Montagnier's conclusions were rejected as hasty by the scientific community, considering that the similar gene sequences are common among similar organisms.[7]
 * for the pandemic to result from this, this still implies:
 * research resulted in the initial variant
 * the initial epidemic would have resulted from a lab leaking those samples
 * which is not considered likely for a number of technical reasons anyway.
 * On the other hand, I don't see the source supporting "His allegation came after the United States had launched a probe into whether the virus came from a laboratory." There's this in-article source that highlights the link though.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that Montagnier said these things in 2020, within the context of a strong media-class rejection of the lab leak theory, it is easy to pull up sources associating Montagnier and the flaws in the lab leak theory. However, the lab leak theory has shifted from the fringes of debate to a non-trivial possibility, yet, to my knowledge, Montagnier has been silent on the subject as of late, and so it is not reasonable to expect that we'd now find sources bothering to look back a year and nuance their previous output.
 * The paragraph currently reads as if the lab leak theory is still a fringe theory, as it was in 2020. Given that that is no longer the case, we need to re-weight the wording, if only slightly. We can do this by reducing the emphasis on the lab leak, while maintaining the emphasis on the larger picture, that is the "laboratory attempt to create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS".
 * Handwaving the lab leak theory with doesn't quite cut it, because the theory no longer departs significantly from the mainstream. Although it may not be likely, that is not for us to judge; rather we judge whether it is a fringe theory, and clearly it no longer is.
 * Setting aside the second sentence, do you disagree with my rephrasing of the first sentence? Brycehughes (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if you'd had a chance to consider the above. Brycehughes (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First sentence rephrasing looks fine to me. I share PaleoNeonate's opinion about using the NYT source, or similarly synthing in some balancing statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Popular belief without evidence is still only speculation and contradicts the scientific consensus that the most likely scenario is zoonotic transfer of a natural variant until shown otherwise (like for other coronavirus epidemics, even if it takes years to discover the exact natural path as is often the case). Moreover, these claims jump from the possibility of a leak (that's still unlikely to cause a pandemic) to a lab-created mutation, an even less likely scenario.  And in the context of HIV; to add material justifying what Montagnier suggests, reputable sources directly claiming that Montagnier was right are needed but independent sources point out that this too is unlikely and that any similarity to HIV is only what is already common to many viruses...  For the "in 2020" sentence, you quoted, the citation reads: "Through the 14 facts relating to each of the 14 paragraphs of this article, everything converges towards possible laboratory manipulations (End Note below) which contributed to modifications of the genome of COVID_19, ..." — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be presenting a scientific case on the origins of COVID-19. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. Or, at least, that's where I'd put my money. But what you and I believe is beside the point. We are but humble Wikipedia editors, after all.
 * I don't think anything I suggested above is . I am simply restructuring a sentence. The information contained in my revision is the same as that which I am replacing; I am tweaking the emphasis. Sourcing doesn't come into play here.
 * Is your objection to my revision that I am removing the clause ? Brycehughes (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that agreeing with the scientific consensus is just an opinion we "humble editors" may have and should ignore. But WP:FRINGE does exist, and edits such as this one do not lend credibility to your Humphrey Appleby "Minister! I am but a humble public servant!" act. The lab leak idea is still fringe within scientific sources, where it counts, and Montagnier's HIV thing adds more fringes to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that revert upset you so much. I'm sorry, if I had known it would I would have approached it differently. seemed to take less offense. I disagree that lab leak theory is fringe in scientific sources. Rather, I'd argue that it has remained a relatively constant, if less likely, possibility throughout the pandemic in scientific sources, while the media interpretations of the science have changed dramatically. And I'd argue that this section was written at the height of media disgust at the lab leak theory, and needs to be mellowed somewhat to read more neutrally now. But passions seem to run high on this page, and I know there are clades of editors on this website whom derive no small enjoyment by triggering every Facebook-charged IP editor who happens to google their latest idol, so I'll drop it. Brycehughes (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that I am upset about this. Is it because I used a quote from a TV show where a character exclaims something, for which I used exclamation marks?
 * This is just one of many places where there is a struggle between NPOV and a fringe POV. Business as usual. When I do get upset, it looks very different. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Intransigence is what it is. Process-focus for the sake of intransigence is what it is. Inshallah, this pandemic won't last forever, and in time we can all come back at this with clear heads. Brycehughes (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will not become friendlier towards WP:FRINGE positions after the pandemic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (in reply to Bryce) I'm basically going to just copy the exact same comment I made when I reverted the recent IP edits: What is plausible is the accidental leak of a natural virus. That is not what Montagnier has promoted, and you have also failed to cite a single reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak
This article is behind the ball. The lab leak is no longer a lunatic fringe theory. It's being considered by the WHO, CDC, and was mentioned by President Biden. E.g.: 2601:181:C381:6C80:98F:FD69:F464:AEA1 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * https://news.yahoo.com/head-says-dismissal-covid-lab-184456492.html
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3
 * https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/former-cdc-director-says-fauci-is-clinging-to-theories-other-than-lab-leak/ar-AAL4Ytb
 * Confusion. Yet again. The lab leak Montagnier promoted is not the same as that doing the rounds of the US newspaper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * an accidental lab leak of a natural virus (the theory now receiving more attention) is very distinct from an artificially created virus made in secret (the theory espoused by Dr. Montagnier). The WHO, for example, is definitely not considering the latter as a reasonable possibility.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article should be clarified then. It seems like a pretty subtle difference. The article does not say he thought the virus was deliberately released, only "deliberately created". Yet this does not match the source cited (there are three citations, but only one of them actually talks about Luc Montagnier?) which simply says "human-made" and that the DNA contained sequences from other viruses. What is so crazy about a man-made virus? The Nature article linked above discusses a man-made virus as though it's a reasonable possibility, one of several? The source article does not say anything about a "secret" program, or for that matter, a weapon. It says he thought it was for an HIV vaccine. 2601:181:C381:6C80:F1C5:1D57:4286:B9D7 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I fully agree with Shibbolethink's summaryI'd focus as the sources do on his idea that the virus was created as part of HIV research and then accidentally releasedbut the gist is the same: Montagnier's specific theory was baseless, was immediately refuted, and has not since gained any scientific support. I am fine with the overview in the lead and the detail in the body as is, but am open to tweaks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I want to be clear, I never suggested that Montagnier was positing a deliberate release. just an artificial virus. So I think we're in agreement there.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 03:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was clear, but I don't object to double clarity! I wasn't so sure about the "secret" part; if that's a feature of Montagnier's claims, I'd be glad to learn so. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I suppose it's implied. I arrived at "secret" via the principle of charity. Because the alternative is that Montagnier just made it up, since there's no evidence of any engineering whatsoever. Either it didn't happen, or it happened in secret with massively large amounts of scientific development of molecular biology techniques the rest of the world doesn't know exist.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 03:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nature article linked above talks about the possible evidence for human engineering (scroll down to "Does the virus have features that suggest it was created in a lab?"). And this Wall Street Journal oped by an M.D. PhD affirmatively asserts the argument (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184). "The most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19." (And frankly, Luc Montagnier himself is supposedly a Nobel-Prize-winning virologist, seems reasonable he would have some insight.)
 * Splitting hairs that it used to be a crazy conspiracy theory that a virus of natural origin leaked from a laboratory, and now it's a serious topic of investigation, but it's still a crazy conspiracy theory that a virus laboratory was engaged in genetic engineering research that's done all over the world, seems like a stretch. (See also https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656)
 * - 2601:181:C381:6C80:6424:FEF:2329:2F4E (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And what for? To smear the subject of the article? Or to litigate some political issue external to the biography? Isn't there a way to state what the subject believes, and add a semi-neutral dispute tag? There are celebrities who believe in Flat Earth. How is that handled? 2601:181:C381:6C80:6424:FEF:2329:2F4E (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't believe it. Comparing this to flat Earth. At least that is easily handled. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, which means that, as far as we are concerned, the Earth is a sphere and SARS-CoV-2 was not created/genetically manipulated in a lab. If somebody is promoting that, as far as we're concerned, again, they're wrong. End of. An opinion piece in the WSJ is not a reliable source (fwiw, an opinion piece, if they even publish that kind of thing, in Nature, would not be, either). We have plenty of far better sources which explicitly say that there is exactly no evidence that the virus was created in a lab, and the only lab scenario that hasn't been ruled out (although it is extremely unlikely) is that of a natural sample being accidentally released. Montagnier is promoting the first kind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * AND that it was specifically created using HIV. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misread what I've said because it's some kind of emotional political issue. No one said we should present Flat Earth as a correct scientific theory in Wikipedia. Neither are we talking about putting various lab leak ideas as correct scientific theories in Wikipedia. I am saying it's odd for a BLP to go out of its way to attack its subject, in particular the introduction, because he said something that is discussed in scientific journals like Nature and in mainstream newspapers like the Wall Street Journal. Other BLPs do not talk about their subjects like this, whether on merely controversial ideas, or totally beyond-the-pale ideas. The article on Ted Kaczynski does not even use the term "conspiracy theory". The article on Lyndon LaRouche discusses it in a lower section on "Controversy", not the introduction, and in very neutral, second-hand terms. See Biographies of living persons. 71.174.145.17 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We do, however, talk about how Kaczynski killed 3 people and injured 23 others when he bombed federal buildings. In the lead for Lyndon Larouche, we say: During the 1970s he created the foundation of the LaRouche Movement and became more engaged in conspiratorial beliefs and violent and/or illegal activities. We talk about the most notable aspects of each BLP, regardless of how "critical" it is, dependent only on how well it is sourced to RSes. And this statement is sourced quite well. It is how our sources describe Montagnier. It appears you may have a problem with the state of the sources instead of the state of this article. I would direct you to WP:NOTTRUTH, which explains how wiki is not a place where "truth" is documented, but rather where "verifiability" drives inclusion of content. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good example. BLPs talk about specific facts, and avoid unnecessary or unsupported characterizations. Kaczynski killed people and had all sorts of ideas, yet the article does not call him a lunatic. Why not? (And undoubtedly there are plenty of sources for this assertion.) Regarding sources, the only source for the sentence in the article is some unknown independent Indian website "The Wire". And if it's an important characterization for a BLP, why shouldn't we edit Nature (journal) and Wall Street Journal to mention that these publications are pushing conspiracy theories, perhaps in the introduction? 71.174.145.17 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yknow you're right that The Wire wasn't the best source. I went ahead and added 2 from some of the best RSes available. Your comparison to Nature and The Wall Street Journal is a false analogy, as conspiracy theories do not factor heavily into what those publications are known for. Montagnier's coverage in popular press is largely centered around the conspiracy theories he pushes. Hence this coverage is WP:DUE.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal battle over patent about fake discovery
I could not read and removed it. This is hardly an encyclopedic content. Welcome to restore, but this should be mentioned only in a couple of phrases if at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Report of Death
France Soir reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/leminent-professeur-luc-montagnier-sest-eteint-le-8-fevrier-2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvcormac (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The same article says there are no confirmations. I think we need conformation before we declare someone dead
 * France Soir is supposedly a tabloid (and thus, like the Daily Fail, probably not an ideal source). Making a quick search, I can't find anything from a seemingly more reliable source; except L'internaute, which however clearly states "la famille n'a pas encore confirmé l'information." As the stereotypical formula goes, "news of [Montagnier]'s death have been greatly exaggerated". Or at least, that is how we as an encyclopedia need to think of it until there is more solid confirmation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

L'internaute reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. https://www.linternaute.com/actualite/biographie/2605567-mort-de-luc-montagnier-le-deces-d-un-prix-nobel-l-hommage-de-didier-raoult/ Rai News reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2022/02/il-giallo-della-morte-di-luc-montaglier-3d9c82af-791a-4162-adc9-579fa5aef53b.html il fatto quotidiano reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-e-giallo-sulla-morte-del-premio-nobel-ne-conferme-ufficiali-ne-smentite-alla-notizia-del-decesso/6488848/ Sky TG24 reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2022/02/10/luc-montagnier-morto-france-soir Sud Radio reports that Montagnier died February 8, 2022. Didier Raoult rend hommage au Professeur Luc Montagnier
 * All of these other sources are basing their report directly on France Soir. Some of them are already calling it a "conspiracy"... Multiple sources repeating the same unconfirmed information from one source doesn't change the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Proven Evidence"
There is no proven evidence indicating the novel coronavirus is a man-made virus.[8][49]

There is "evidence", and/or there is "proof". There is no such thing as "proven evidence". It's stupid and tortured thing to say, when you refuse to say "There is no proof.", which leaves the door open to the possibility of evidence, and when you can't bring yourself to say "There is no evidence.", which there certainly is. So, you juxtapose the two words together and create the nonsensical quality of "proven evidence" which "sort of" covers both bases for the low-IQ morons that don't know or care about knowing the difference between the two.107.195.106.201 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This was changed by someone who did not provide much of a reason why. The given sources state that "Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2." (Frutos et al.) or that "There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin." (Holmes et al.); so I've restored the pre-existing text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
FBI and Energy Department have made statements: Mick2 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=fbi+and+energy+department+sars-cov-2&ia=web
 * Do you have sources mentioning him and his claims in this connection? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there is consensus that he has made this claim in 2020. The issue is an editorial one: should Wikipedia label his hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" or not? Given that Montagnier's statement was regarding the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2, and not regarding who did it. And given that his theory is now endorsed by the USA. 81.204.112.85 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We say what our reliable sources say. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any RS which contradict the FBI/energy department? --Mick2 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See my comment above and answer it. Also see the edit summaries where I have reverted your edits. Resolve and respond to those issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources which describe the scientific consensus position, which are the WP:BESTSOURCES and how we decide what is "true" on wikipedia. These sources do not support Montagnier's position as vindicated. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 Pandemic: Vaccine-Driven Mutation and ADE
I’ve removed the second of two paragraphs under: Controversies> COVID-19 Pandemic about Montagnier’s radio interview where he reportedly stated that vaccines were driving SARS-2 and evolution and Antibody Dependent Enhancement would cause the vaccines to exacerbate the severity of COVID cases. I provide the text of the paragraph with the cite below in case someone wants to use it as a guide to look and see what WP:MEDRS sources say on this. I have taken it down bc, while this source, The Wire, India, is listed in WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, this individual article is not reliable as key arguments make no sense and, much more importantly, biomedical information, broadly construed, requires [WP:MEDRS]] sources.

The author of the article claims that Montagnier’s apparent statement on viral evolution being driven by vaccines is wrong because (1) only 6% of viral mutations are beneficial and (2) one of the variants of concern at the time was denominated as such bc it had evolved to a point where it could evade vaccine induced immunity but that since it was first spotted in India before vaccinates were given there, the strain’s evolution could not have been driven by vaccines. The problem with his arguments is the virus isn’t literally thinking about how to evade the vaccine and intentionally making changes to avoid it; as he acknowledges, mutations are random. Thus the vaccine can be seen as “driving” evolution even if it encounters a variant AFTER it’s mutated, when it can then create a situation where it can replicate like crazy. Plus since there are staggering numbers of mutations occurring, it thus doesn’t matter that only 6% are beneficial. 6% of a jillion is still a lot of evolved virus variants.

Note, the cite did not have a link. Here is the article: https://science.thewire.in/health/luc-montagniers-views-on-covid-vaccines-are-latest-of-his-wrong-vexing-ideas/

“In a 2021 interview with French media group Hold Up, Montagnier claimed that the use of vaccinations for COVID was steering the evolution of new strains and that the process of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) would cause vaccinated individuals to suffer more strongly. The former claim has no obvious basis in fact, while ADE has only ever been conclusively demonstrated in a single example, secondary dengue virus infections. The statements were misattributed in social media posts by the RAIR Foundation USA, which claimed that Montagnier stated that anyone that had the vaccine would "die in two years." These claims gained widespread distribution on Twitter. “ JustinReilly (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That Montagnier made these claims isn't something that needs a MEDRS cite. Since the subject of this article is Montagnier not these claims or COVID, we can just briefly cite the mainstream viewpoint using WP:PARITY compliant sources. Nuking the paragraph was overkill. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this individual article is not reliable as key arguments make no sense and, much more importantly, biomedical information, broadly construed, requires [WP:MEDRS]] sources|undefined Attributed claims from someone like Montagnier do not need MEDRS sources, this source is fine. Arguments about the validity of Montagnier's claims are completely irrelevant. What only matters is whether or not he said them. I've removed the "two years" comment as we need direct confirmation of Montagnier saying something in order for it to be included per BLP. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for addressing inappropriate bias
The last sentence in the intro implies he lacks expertise in a field where he is an expert. Untrue statements regarding qualifications (or in this case, lack thereof) and slanderous gossip content are both inappropriate. Current content below in italics. Suggested revision noted with strike-through text.

''Such a claim has been rejected by other virologists. He has been criticised by other academics for using his Nobel prize status to "spread dangerous health messages outside his field of knowledge".'' LauraWalton (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously denying the quote cited to the RS? (The letter read: “We, academics of medicine, cannot accept that one of our peers is using his Nobel prize [status] to spread dangerous health messages outside of his field of knowledge.”) Maybe the missing "of" (of his field) threw you off. I have fixed that. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the reason I will no longer donate to Wikipedia
this text says that Luc Montagnier promoted a conspiracy theory about COVID 19. I don't like the fact that people who disagreed with the way COVID 19 was handled were censored or ridiculed by the mainstream media, instead of allowing constructive debate. For this reason I no longer donate to Wikipedia. 109.52.5.124 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You should have known it for a long time. It is spelled out at WP:LUNATICS. It's old news. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorrily needing updating
Lab-escape-denialism was fashionable (but wrong) in the first two years, but times have changed and it's terribly disingenuous to start the article portraying his opinions as false when today, lab-escape is a completely mainstream. I hope this situation gets fixed. Tallard (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read COVID-19 lab leak theory. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Other/some
, can you please make the case for your disputed change here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to quantify the last sentence in the opening which reads "Such a claim has been rejected by other virologists." The word "other" is incredibly vague. For instance, it is equally true to write the sentence: "Such a claim has been accepted by other virologists." but I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that this would not be agreeable to other editors. Hence, quantifying some measure of degree of agreement will be an improvement to article. Can we agree on this? Lenschulwitz (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support quantifying the amount of disagreement if we have reliable sources available to help us do so. In the meantime, "some" is just as vague as "other", but it has the additional issue of implying "few". Since the sources don't imply "few", we shouldn't either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think we have reliable sources to do so? Lenschulwitz (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither alternative is quantified. "Other" more accurately reflects the scientific consensus - "some" implies a minority. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So you would agree it is worth quantifying, yes? Lenschulwitz (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)