Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1379 sci.misc:2188 sci.research:439
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!ayermish
From: ayermish@athena.mit.edu (Aimee Yermish)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article
Message-ID: <6472@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 29 Jul 88 07:26:25 GMT
References: <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov> <11063@oberon.USC.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: ayermish@athena.mit.edu (Aimee Yermish)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 21

It's extremely unlikely that the antibodies would reproduce
themselves, considering that they don't have the machinery around to
do it with.  I don't know enough about the structure of the molecules
involved to answer the splitting issue, but I will suggest that if
you're diluting to 10**120, whether you started with 100 molecules or
500 molecules is really pretty immaterial.  I vote for a combination
of some loosening up by the organic gunk and some mechanical shear
provided by the vortexing (they did say vigorous, right?), will have
to really pick at their protocols in my copious free time.  It would
be really good to find something that answers the IgG control...

If they filtered it such that only water molecules could get through,
and the results turned out believable again, don't you think *someone*
would suggest that they filtered out the somehow changed water
molecules that were responsible for the effect in the first place. (grin)

--Aimee

------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Yermish		ayermish@athena.mit.edu
MIT couldn't care less about anything I say. 
(as long as I finish that last paper...)