14 ms·

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to spreading between humans? Intuitively, that doesn't make sense. Also the fact that the WHO has kept changing its story about this virus from the beginning is not reassuring at all. At this stage, as crazy as it is, I'm inclined to believe the conspiracy theorists because the official version comes across as even crazier.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) Bats are mammals, and so far from “totally unrelated” to humans, but... > be so well adapted to spreading between humans? So, Spanish flu wasn't of avian (far less related to humans than bats) origin but was also a man-made bioweapon?
robbiep 6y ago
By the same logic, was the H1N1 spanish flu designed to perfectly flourish and kill possibly 10% of hosts? You say it in your second paragraph. You're no biologist. But you find it strange. Very few biologists find it strange. They have in fact been warning of a ticking time bomb [0 for brevity, 1 for article]. May I respectfully suggest that you stick to your lane regarding the science? WHO ups and downs and political bickering to one side, science is a messy process of honing in on the right answer and lay-people have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when other answers fitting in more closely with their world view abound. It would be nice if scientists could come out on day 1 and tell everyone exactly what to expect but that isn't how science works. [0] https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-time-bomb-for-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-in-2007/ https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-... [1] https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf
- nothal 6y ago
  I understand your impetus to tell others to 'stick to your lane' but I respectfully disagree and cite their post and your response as why. OP had what you deem a misapprehension and they deem a valid point. By voicing their point as they believes it, you were able to retort with evidence you feel should convincingly disprove it. To me, this is reasoned, diverse discourse correcting for unintuitive misapprehensions, at the very least. Is this not a medium like HackerNews is for?
  - robbiep 6y ago
    It’s taken me a little while to parse this one. HN has always felt like a good/safe place (to me) to talk about interesting things with a mix of experts and lay people. When it gets down to science though, agree or disagree need to be left to the experts. I can’t be the expert/final arbiter because my knowledge isn’t good enough (although I have some capacity), and so I am encouraging OP to go with the experts on this one. It’s too complex a field for people to have their own opinions based on hearsays - science should not be politics and we’re seeing that in the world now. It doesn’t matter what you believe coming in with science, you have to be guided by (a best approximation of the evolving) facts. I’m not totally sure what you disagree on, is it the rudeness of ‘stay in your lane’ or my argument?
    - tridentlead 6y ago
      Ben Franklin once said that the best argument against democracy was a discussion with the average voter. But I think there is an equal risk there of members of a society being unwilling to read what experts put out, and evaluate it themselves as well. Once people start saying I don't know anything about this and I can't make any determinations, democracy starts to make a lot less sense. At the end of the day science is basically critical reasoning backed by fact collection. If you can go read up on the facts, you can reason based on them. If someone can explain to you why you are wrong that may be one thing, but simply assuming you can never reason anything out is very dangerous.
      - 6y ago
jimbob45 6y ago
Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick. Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.
- noxer 6y ago
  What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all? It's only racist if you think people should be treated differently or have different rights. Its not racist if you find differences just like it isn't sexist if you find difference between man and woman.
  - chris1993 6y ago
    There's no accepted definition of intelligence so how could he be correct [0]? He's using a culturally defined comparison which unsurprisingly places him on the winning side. If you make comparisons on the basis of race (which is a social construct[1]) where the result demonstrates "racial superiority" then it is racist. It's social and cultural influences all the way down. [0]http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
    - noxer 6y ago
      He made the statements with the word "intelligence" but obviously meant IQ points as it is still the only way to measure something close to what we experience as intelligence. Away its not relevant I didn't talk about intelligence I specifically said "differences" because it removes the implicit rating. It should be up to everyone to decide whether it is good or bad or rather irrelevant or whats most likely, it has its pros and cons like almost all other known genetic differences. The whole "winning side" and "racial superiority" etc. is made up. He obvious could not choose his own race and even put "his own race" in the middle according to his definitions of intelligence. The "winning side" would have been some Asians and he is clearly is not Asian. He also never proclaimed any kind of race superiority. Pointing out a conclusion of his research can not be racists even if the facts turn out to be wrong because of an error. Or maybe the facts stay correct in case of the IQ differences but other research suggests that IQ points are horribly to measure intelligence. Either way you would need to find prejudice, discrimination or basis IN HIS RESEARCH not in his concussion to convict him of actually being racist. Errors or definition changes simply should lead to a new concision that would be that there is still a measurable difference in brains but it doesn't directly correlate to intelligence. In every other similar situation this would be common sense. For example people with Trisomy 21 have statistically significant lower IQs. Its just a fact. No one comes around and screams racism if you state that fact. Also no one who states that fact wants to express their superiority over these people. In fact people who research all this are on the front line to support these people because knowing the differences is what allows coexisting with maximal individual freedom. Denying differences does not help anyone. >It's social and cultural influences all the way down. Plenty of research suggests otherwise. Like I said in my previous post "how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all?" While all the rest of the human body has differences. Its actually very very unlikely and reality is almost certainly a mix between social and cultural influences and genetic differences in the brain but also in the rest of the body that affects the brain in millions of different ways.
hnick 6y ago
It has happened before multiple times, so clearly it can happen. This feels like confusing weather and climate, and working backwards from a conclusion. The evolutionary chance to make a single virus so well suited to human hosts is probably very small. If you take a single event and work backwards it seems very unlikely. But in aggregate over time, it'll happen fairly regularly, hence the warnings.
modzu 6y ago
why should viral "behavior" be "intuitive" in any sense at all? (unless of course youre a bioligist of the requisite experience). here is one idea that might reframe your intuitons: viruses are so small there are billions of them on you right now. intuitions about the behavior of such tiny things, even outside your body, are tough. does a piece of paper block them or are they small enough to pass through the pores of the paper? any idea? and what happens to them inside your body? your intuition ought to break down by now unless you have good mental models of the biological process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome
drtillberg 6y ago
Luc Montagnier's theory is inconvenient in two ways: 1. it suggests that academic research concerning viruses is potentially catastrophically hazardous and 2. he predicted that the pandemic will dissapate all on its own because the manipulated aspects of the virus will not survive long.[1] These are truly fascinating claims, especially the second, which despite the credibility and stature of the source, have been targeted rather than reported by traditional media outlets in the U.S. [1] https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/ https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-m...
- dolmen 6y ago
  Luc Montagnier has long lost any credibility in his home country, France.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Fritz Haber wasn't exactly super popular well... anywhere for contributions to WWI or WWII. Doesn't mean he was any less credible as chemist.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Luc Montagnier lost credibility due to making incorrect claims and general quackery. Not comparable to Haber. He has made claims supporting homeopathy, and claimed to have evidence of DNA teleportation. That's reason enough to lose credibility.
      - salawat 6y ago
        Hmmm. Looked into it some more. Unfortunate that. I'll give his stuff a read to be sure it says what everyone else seems to say it does, but I can see your Point if other people's assessments I've read are accurate.
lovehashbrowns 6y ago
Biology, and the universe in general, aren't always intuitive. I'm also completely flabbergasted that you take 1 person's opinion, despite it being the opposite of the opinions of a general educated scientific community, and you take that one person's opinion more seriously. And apparently you are not a historian, either, because we've had viruses spread in humans in the past. I don't see how this being a naturally-made virus is crazier than it being man-made. In fact, it's crazy if it is man-made.
- dionian 6y ago
  is there evidence that it's not?
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    Every single pandemic in history was naturally occurring, so I think it makes sense for our priors to be weighted towards COVID-19 being a natural occurrence like all others. Substantial evidence and compelling arguments can overcome these priors. But it’s a big claim with huge implications so I think caution is warranted.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      This reasoning is too pragmatic for such a hot-button issue. Where is the hyperbole and masked vitriol?
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > Every single pandemic in history was naturally occurring Add also that the scientists have been warning for decades that another SARS-alike was almost inevitable, cf. > The now-prophetic words could be found at the end of a research paper published in the journal Clinical Microbiology Reviews in October of 2007: “The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb.” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/scientists-predicted-coronavirus-pandemic/613003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/scientist...
nate_meurer 6y ago
Luc Montagnier is the guy who claimed to invent a way to teleport DNA using electrical signals. His paper was so bad, so stupid and and ignorant, I initially took it for satire. It might be the worst research paper I've ever read, and it was universally mocked by everyone except supporters of homeopathy. Speaking of which, he also buys into the homeopathy thing. Yes, he did important work on HIV, but given his overall track record, his support of COVID conspiracies should make you less credulous, not more.
bmitc 6y ago
Do we actually know this virus evolved in bats? To my knowledge, bats are simply a carrier, and the viruses they carry don't necessarily evolve in bats themselves (this should be checked). It seems possible the virus came from somewhere else. Bats are definitely not the only carrier of viruses, so it's dangerous to think they're the only animals to worry about. There are millions of viruses out there carried by all sorts of animals. http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-pandemic-coming http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-p... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01096-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01096-z
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Viruses are still replicating in carriers, and as long as they’re replicating they’re going to mutate and evolve.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    But carriers does not necessarily equal bats.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dolmen 6y ago
When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view LESS seriously. https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/luc-montagnier-coronavirus-wuhan-lab-pseudoscience/ https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/luc-montagnier-coron...
dilyevsky 6y ago
Was smallpox also man-made then?
orwin 6y ago
Luc Montagnier should not be taken seriously[0]. I'd say than every "theory" he follows make me distrust them. I think he is even an antivaxx now[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Research_on_electromagnetic_signals_from_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Research_on_ele... [1]https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/27/luc-montagnier-hits-a-new-low-age-of-autism-rallies-to-defend-him https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/27/luc-montagnier...
Izkata 6y ago
> How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to spreading between humans? Intuitively, that doesn't make sense. Rather than simply berate as sibling comments have done, I'm going to try and explain it as I understand it (also as a layperson). Basically, you have the compatibility at the wrong level, and the effect backwards. Bats and humans are very different from each other when taken as a whole, but if you dive into the smaller structures, they're much more similar. Lungs, heart, blood, etc, and well as deeper to cells. Viruses adapt at those levels, able to attack cells with specific structures, so when they jump species those similar structures are what get attacked. This is why it appears well-adapted to humans, because it is well-adapted to similar cell structures shared between animals. As for the effect: The viruses in total exist at that same level, and our bodies haven't adapted to them, so we have no strong defense* in the form of antibodies. On top of that, it's a respiratory virus, where simple breathing can spread it rather than requiring some sort of physical contact. Those two reasons combined are why it spreads so fast. * Not exactly true, I'm simplifying. We do have defenses, they just don't seem to be as effective against this virus. See "innate immune system" for un-targeted defenses that work on a variety of invaders, and "adaptive immune system" for the one that creates antibodies.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) Bats are mammals, and so far from “totally unrelated” to humans, but... > be so well adapted to spreading between humans? So, Spanish flu wasn't of avian (far less related to humans than bats) origin but was also a man-made bioweapon?

robbiep 6y ago

By the same logic, was the H1N1 spanish flu designed to perfectly flourish and kill possibly 10% of hosts? You say it in your second paragraph. You're no biologist. But you find it strange. Very few biologists find it strange. They have in fact been warning of a ticking time bomb [0 for brevity, 1 for article]. May I respectfully suggest that you stick to your lane regarding the science? WHO ups and downs and political bickering to one side, science is a messy process of honing in on the right answer and lay-people have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when other answers fitting in more closely with their world view abound. It would be nice if scientists could come out on day 1 and tell everyone exactly what to expect but that isn't how science works. [0] https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-time-bomb-for-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-in-2007/ https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-... [1] https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf

nothal 6y ago
I understand your impetus to tell others to 'stick to your lane' but I respectfully disagree and cite their post and your response as why. OP had what you deem a misapprehension and they deem a valid point. By voicing their point as they believes it, you were able to retort with evidence you feel should convincingly disprove it. To me, this is reasoned, diverse discourse correcting for unintuitive misapprehensions, at the very least. Is this not a medium like HackerNews is for?
- robbiep 6y ago
  It’s taken me a little while to parse this one. HN has always felt like a good/safe place (to me) to talk about interesting things with a mix of experts and lay people. When it gets down to science though, agree or disagree need to be left to the experts. I can’t be the expert/final arbiter because my knowledge isn’t good enough (although I have some capacity), and so I am encouraging OP to go with the experts on this one. It’s too complex a field for people to have their own opinions based on hearsays - science should not be politics and we’re seeing that in the world now. It doesn’t matter what you believe coming in with science, you have to be guided by (a best approximation of the evolving) facts. I’m not totally sure what you disagree on, is it the rudeness of ‘stay in your lane’ or my argument?
  - tridentlead 6y ago
    Ben Franklin once said that the best argument against democracy was a discussion with the average voter. But I think there is an equal risk there of members of a society being unwilling to read what experts put out, and evaluate it themselves as well. Once people start saying I don't know anything about this and I can't make any determinations, democracy starts to make a lot less sense. At the end of the day science is basically critical reasoning backed by fact collection. If you can go read up on the facts, you can reason based on them. If someone can explain to you why you are wrong that may be one thing, but simply assuming you can never reason anything out is very dangerous.
    - 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago

Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick. Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.

noxer 6y ago
What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all? It's only racist if you think people should be treated differently or have different rights. Its not racist if you find differences just like it isn't sexist if you find difference between man and woman.
- chris1993 6y ago
  There's no accepted definition of intelligence so how could he be correct [0]? He's using a culturally defined comparison which unsurprisingly places him on the winning side. If you make comparisons on the basis of race (which is a social construct[1]) where the result demonstrates "racial superiority" then it is racist. It's social and cultural influences all the way down. [0]http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-intelligence.html [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
  - noxer 6y ago
    He made the statements with the word "intelligence" but obviously meant IQ points as it is still the only way to measure something close to what we experience as intelligence. Away its not relevant I didn't talk about intelligence I specifically said "differences" because it removes the implicit rating. It should be up to everyone to decide whether it is good or bad or rather irrelevant or whats most likely, it has its pros and cons like almost all other known genetic differences. The whole "winning side" and "racial superiority" etc. is made up. He obvious could not choose his own race and even put "his own race" in the middle according to his definitions of intelligence. The "winning side" would have been some Asians and he is clearly is not Asian. He also never proclaimed any kind of race superiority. Pointing out a conclusion of his research can not be racists even if the facts turn out to be wrong because of an error. Or maybe the facts stay correct in case of the IQ differences but other research suggests that IQ points are horribly to measure intelligence. Either way you would need to find prejudice, discrimination or basis IN HIS RESEARCH not in his concussion to convict him of actually being racist. Errors or definition changes simply should lead to a new concision that would be that there is still a measurable difference in brains but it doesn't directly correlate to intelligence. In every other similar situation this would be common sense. For example people with Trisomy 21 have statistically significant lower IQs. Its just a fact. No one comes around and screams racism if you state that fact. Also no one who states that fact wants to express their superiority over these people. In fact people who research all this are on the front line to support these people because knowing the differences is what allows coexisting with maximal individual freedom. Denying differences does not help anyone. >It's social and cultural influences all the way down. Plenty of research suggests otherwise. Like I said in my previous post "how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all?" While all the rest of the human body has differences. Its actually very very unlikely and reality is almost certainly a mix between social and cultural influences and genetic differences in the brain but also in the rest of the body that affects the brain in millions of different ways.

hnick 6y ago

It has happened before multiple times, so clearly it can happen. This feels like confusing weather and climate, and working backwards from a conclusion. The evolutionary chance to make a single virus so well suited to human hosts is probably very small. If you take a single event and work backwards it seems very unlikely. But in aggregate over time, it'll happen fairly regularly, hence the warnings.

modzu 6y ago

why should viral "behavior" be "intuitive" in any sense at all? (unless of course youre a bioligist of the requisite experience). here is one idea that might reframe your intuitons: viruses are so small there are billions of them on you right now. intuitions about the behavior of such tiny things, even outside your body, are tough. does a piece of paper block them or are they small enough to pass through the pores of the paper? any idea? and what happens to them inside your body? your intuition ought to break down by now unless you have good mental models of the biological process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome

drtillberg 6y ago

Luc Montagnier's theory is inconvenient in two ways: 1. it suggests that academic research concerning viruses is potentially catastrophically hazardous and 2. he predicted that the pandemic will dissapate all on its own because the manipulated aspects of the virus will not survive long.[1] These are truly fascinating claims, especially the second, which despite the credibility and stature of the source, have been targeted rather than reported by traditional media outlets in the U.S. [1] https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/ https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-m...

dolmen 6y ago
Luc Montagnier has long lost any credibility in his home country, France.
- salawat 6y ago
  Fritz Haber wasn't exactly super popular well... anywhere for contributions to WWI or WWII. Doesn't mean he was any less credible as chemist.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Luc Montagnier lost credibility due to making incorrect claims and general quackery. Not comparable to Haber. He has made claims supporting homeopathy, and claimed to have evidence of DNA teleportation. That's reason enough to lose credibility.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Hmmm. Looked into it some more. Unfortunate that. I'll give his stuff a read to be sure it says what everyone else seems to say it does, but I can see your Point if other people's assessments I've read are accurate.

lovehashbrowns 6y ago

Biology, and the universe in general, aren't always intuitive. I'm also completely flabbergasted that you take 1 person's opinion, despite it being the opposite of the opinions of a general educated scientific community, and you take that one person's opinion more seriously. And apparently you are not a historian, either, because we've had viruses spread in humans in the past. I don't see how this being a naturally-made virus is crazier than it being man-made. In fact, it's crazy if it is man-made.

dionian 6y ago
is there evidence that it's not?
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  Every single pandemic in history was naturally occurring, so I think it makes sense for our priors to be weighted towards COVID-19 being a natural occurrence like all others. Substantial evidence and compelling arguments can overcome these priors. But it’s a big claim with huge implications so I think caution is warranted.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    This reasoning is too pragmatic for such a hot-button issue. Where is the hyperbole and masked vitriol?
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > Every single pandemic in history was naturally occurring Add also that the scientists have been warning for decades that another SARS-alike was almost inevitable, cf. > The now-prophetic words could be found at the end of a research paper published in the journal Clinical Microbiology Reviews in October of 2007: “The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb.” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/scientists-predicted-coronavirus-pandemic/613003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/scientist...

nate_meurer 6y ago

Luc Montagnier is the guy who claimed to invent a way to teleport DNA using electrical signals. His paper was so bad, so stupid and and ignorant, I initially took it for satire. It might be the worst research paper I've ever read, and it was universally mocked by everyone except supporters of homeopathy. Speaking of which, he also buys into the homeopathy thing. Yes, he did important work on HIV, but given his overall track record, his support of COVID conspiracies should make you less credulous, not more.

bmitc 6y ago

Do we actually know this virus evolved in bats? To my knowledge, bats are simply a carrier, and the viruses they carry don't necessarily evolve in bats themselves (this should be checked). It seems possible the virus came from somewhere else. Bats are definitely not the only carrier of viruses, so it's dangerous to think they're the only animals to worry about. There are millions of viruses out there carried by all sorts of animals. http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-pandemic-coming http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-p... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01096-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01096-z

mr_toad 6y ago
Viruses are still replicating in carriers, and as long as they’re replicating they’re going to mutate and evolve.
- bmitc 6y ago
  But carriers does not necessarily equal bats.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dolmen 6y ago

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view LESS seriously. https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/luc-montagnier-coronavirus-wuhan-lab-pseudoscience/ https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/luc-montagnier-coron...

dilyevsky 6y ago

Was smallpox also man-made then?

orwin 6y ago

Luc Montagnier should not be taken seriously[0]. I'd say than every "theory" he follows make me distrust them. I think he is even an antivaxx now[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Research_on_electromagnetic_signals_from_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Research_on_ele... [1]https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/27/luc-montagnier-hits-a-new-low-age-of-autism-rallies-to-defend-him https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/27/luc-montagnier...

Izkata 6y ago

> How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to spreading between humans? Intuitively, that doesn't make sense. Rather than simply berate as sibling comments have done, I'm going to try and explain it as I understand it (also as a layperson). Basically, you have the compatibility at the wrong level, and the effect backwards. Bats and humans are very different from each other when taken as a whole, but if you dive into the smaller structures, they're much more similar. Lungs, heart, blood, etc, and well as deeper to cells. Viruses adapt at those levels, able to attack cells with specific structures, so when they jump species those similar structures are what get attacked. This is why it appears well-adapted to humans, because it is well-adapted to similar cell structures shared between animals. As for the effect: The viruses in total exist at that same level, and our bodies haven't adapted to them, so we have no strong defense* in the form of antibodies. On top of that, it's a respiratory virus, where simple breathing can spread it rather than requiring some sort of physical contact. Those two reasons combined are why it spreads so fast. * Not exactly true, I'm simplifying. We do have defenses, they just don't seem to be as effective against this virus. See "innate immune system" for un-targeted defenses that work on a variety of invaders, and "adaptive immune system" for the one that creates antibodies.