Talk:Michael Levitt (biophysicist)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
Please list the countries where the laureate holds citizenship. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

something I feel you might be interested in.
Now this is what I wrote my father. So please put aside the parts of the conversation that corresponds to that aspect. I want your professional opinion on the true scientific aspects of it, and the theories on the Quantum Entanglement of the mechanics on the process involved. FYI there's more I left out on purpose in case I have to use it to help affirm that It's mine. Like a way of key coding my data by the absence of certain key components. Oh and the halonated part of its growth formation is really neat to watch. An yes I'm a self taught well read individual. Life has endowed me with its own degree one that is unique. Still be very nice to have that piece of paper to help smooth of those that don't respect those with out such formal learning experiences of a college degree. Hope you find this interest, and I would be very greatful for your professional opinion on the subject matter.

Caffeine, Niacin, and B-12 with the red cherry additive.. Denatured alcohol an Hydrogen peroxide in certain quanties.. Then taking the correct layers of separated compounds and putting them in a corresponding geometric structure. Quantum mathematics of molecular Entanglement is why. Then it takes time, and other steps all of which are mostly absence of photonic Interactions to allow simulated structure growth in correspondence to correct quantumly entangled mechanics of Quantum synchronicity of the micro/macro dynamic on how energy operates. A play on what's called the "Micheal Reaction" that was discovered by a Arthor Michael in the late 1800s. The organic compound actually created a form of life by definition from how it grows during its evolution stage. To put in terms you would get dad, as a star collapses in space a black hole is formed and it transfers it's energy to some where else where a new Star is born from its reincarnated energy. This in a fundamental way explains the way this stage of growth operates. Creating an organic life form that allows for transfer of specific essences. It's part of a methly alkly based organic crystal structure. It goes through alot of very advanced process of Quantum mechanics. An is a pure legal organic compound structure. Btw but it then can be infused with another organic chemical structure. Magnesium citrate or even a zinc infused crystal formation. And thru a process during its growth phase the first crystal structure thru a unique Way :) A gas phase of energy transfer in away along photon type molecular mechanisms it is infused with ones essence but only if all other process of frequency harmonics are in correct alignment. By the end of it has a sacred geometric correspondence to what is called the "flower of life" making any where from a 4-5 Dimensonal organic compound.. That has even show abilities of being a cancer fighting drug/supplement to even reverseing cynid poisoning from extended cigarette smoking. An even more exciting it help grow neuro pathways. It stimulates the growth/healing properties of the human body. A really rare structure bonding that is very hard to do. An I have actually done it. An had it tested to prove it is real and is legit. Makes you eat like a horse and feel great. So I CAN for once in my life with all complete honesty say I won't ever touch methamphetamines ever again. I have a great life ahead of me and I won't ever go back to those way that almost took everything from me. I've had my research on all this accepted by a government agency and it's been added to the existing knowledge in this field of study. I was even given a authors manuscript from the government while they fine tune all the things that are connected with everything Thats involved. That's due to program Called CHAARM which involves simulated synthisis of drug like compounds via force fields or aka electromagnetic fields that stimulate secretions of compound chains from Membranes in the brain. Which is connected to cocular implants among other things. So it's got military applications among its list of connections. Told you it's very complicated. An this time I finally got validation and proof beyond just my theories. I may not have a degree dad but I do know what I'm talking about. When your finally able to wrap your mind around this, I hope for once you'll finally be proud of just how smart your son really is. An how you best creation calls you dad. Michael Lee Namaste CHAARM (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Levitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.iscb.org/iscb-fellows
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101211033/http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=8641&ArticleID=18621 to http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=8641&ArticleID=18621
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104183357/http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html to http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/lifson/home.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://royalsociety.org/people/michael-levitt-11810/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://royalsociety.org/about-us/terms-conditions-policies/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220233807/http://www.iscb.org/iscb-news-items/2392-2015feb20-meet-the-iscb-fellows-class-of-2015 to http://www.iscb.org/iscb-news-items/2392-2015feb20-meet-the-iscb-fellows-class-of-2015

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Levitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105214152/http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/Present_Group.html to http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/Present_Group.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325231210/http://csb.stanford.edu/ to http://csb.stanford.edu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715200937/http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/ to http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322220938/http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/2_Page_CV.html to http://csb.stanford.edu/levitt/2_Page_CV.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Uncritical acceptance of his COVID-19 claims
This article presents Levitt's position about the pandemic as if it were uncontroversial, when that's far from true. Claiming that the lockdowns have caused more deaths than they prevented isn't just controversial, it's a lunatic-fringe position. And his "correct prediction" of the trajectory of the disease in China is based on China's self-reported numbers which are widely believed to be fake. Honestly, I think this section of the article violates NPOV. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. This section has been constantly changing since March and now conveniently fails to mention Levitt's previous predictions, which are way out (deaths in Israel are at 285 and still rising, as of yesterday). I'd remove the whole section but I've a feeling it would just get reverted. Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged two sentences as needing citations, but I don't think that my knowledge of biology is enough to go over the section in detail. Autarch (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

New source on Levitt's COVID denial
Ariel Karlinsky on Science-Based Medicine: --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this and other sources (currently used on the page), it appears he did not deny anything, but he made several incorrect predictions about the development of the pandemic. This is not surprising because he is not an epidemiologist, but a physicist. Of course epidemiologists were making very different prediction, and they turned out to be right (of course). I do not see why his incorrect predictions deserved so much attention on the page. This is entirely beyond his area of expertise. That section must be shortened or removed altogether. Especially because he never published such ideas in any journals, just twitted. And that would be a medical claim. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A tidying, rather than outright deletion, is the way forward for that section I think. As you say, he didn't deny anything, but his predictions were widely reported in the news (whether in a journal or not is irrelevant). I assume they were widely reported mainly because he's a Nobel laureate, rather than his expertise in epidemiology or disease modelling.
 * IMO this story has dragged on longer than it need to because, rather than conceding that it's not his area of expertise, he's doubled down and continued to make wild predictions and claims, which continue to be reported, because hey, he won a Nobel prize. Just my 2c... Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see only a couple of articles in major newspapers (like LAT) published in a middle of 2020. So it did not get that much coverage. His mistake was apparently considering one of the early "waves" as an end of pandemic. As LAT article say, "He predicted that the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in China would end up around 80,000, with about 3,250 deaths. This forecast turned out to be remarkably accurate [at the time of the publication]". Overall, this seems to be a case of outdated news/WP:NOTNEWS... Is it relevant to "the enduring notability" of this person? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Levitt's anti-vax takes on twitter
Michael Levitt has increased the frequency of his anti-vax takes, calling it a placebo, retweeting tweets that it has caused 10s of thousands of deaths, questioning its effectiveness from cherry-picked data, and consistently has objected to vaccine mandates. I think these sentiments should be part of the COVID19 section of his wikipedia page (just as facts about his positions, not editorialized). But I have tried twice and they have been reversed, basically because it's hard to find a source other than Levitt's twitter account itself. I found an editorial piece in the Stanford daily (https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/05/do-as-we-do-not-as-they-say/) but this was not found sufficient by one wiki editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiwec81618). I understand that but I could use advice on what to cite. I could make a page (not on wikipedia) of his anti-vax tweets but that would take some time. The anti-vax stuff seems to be his recent focus. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Math-ghamhainn, thanks also for the message on my talk page; I'll respond with my thoughts here. I understand about the fact that Levitt has indeed tweeted these things, but based on WP:NOR we ought to have reliable secondary sources in order to include this in the article. I've also looked and haven't found much on this in recent publications. But in general I think WP:RS is a useful guide and WP:RSP has a list of commonly used sources along with their reputation in the Wikipedia community. We may need to wait for sources to cover these aspects of Levitt's tweets. Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fiwec81618. I'll keep looking but maybe nobody has taken his anti-vax stuff seriously enough to write about it in a WP:RS source. There is the possibility of citing a small number of his own tweets along the lines of WP:SELFSOURCE but I'll hold off for now. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure WP:SELFSOURCE applies here based on condition 2 there (claims about third parties), but hopefully there will be a WP:RS source in the future and this will be moot. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I
— Assignment last updated by Yonderling (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

– no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views Joeykai (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael Levitt → Michael Levitt (biophysicist)
 * Michael Levitt (disambiguation) → Michael Levitt


 * Is this a controversial change? Because it seems rather clear to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding something? FortunateSons (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Ortizesp. There are four men listed upon the Michael Levitt (disambiguation) pege, with no indication that the biophysicist's prominence exceeds the combined notability of the remaining three men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:NOPRIMARY as proposed. I think the disambiguator might better match guideline point #3 at WP:NCDAB if it were (scientist), but looking through some categories of scientists by field tells me this isn't done often. I don't see the need to start either, attaching the field is simple and informative. &#8213; Synpath 01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the biophysicist only has around 20% of pageviews so clearly isn't primary.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)