Even after a decade of Open Science Initiatives, only about 50% of papers are open access, public trust in science is not increasing or even going down, and funding for science is if anything going down. is it a success?
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
🚨 Breaking: Elisabeth Bik, the fake 'science integrity consultant' who has been carefully positioned as the public face of the PubPeer 'PubSmear' Network, blatantly lies:
“I addressed these concerns years ago — here is a helpful link. The IRB covered all five body sites and was yearly renewed. [link to the article record on PubPeer]”
⚠️ This concerns two uBiome-linked PLOS ONE papers co-authored by Elisabeth M. Bik (@PLOSONE @PLOS) — papers whose lead authors (uBiome co-founders Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte) were federally indicted on fraud charges and remain criminal fugitives — that both cite the exact same human-subjects approval — IRB Study #13044 (05/10/2013) — despite involving very different research activities, including a later vaginal diagnostic paper involving HPV and STI testing that was promoted as a commercial assay.
Bik’s statements and justifications on the compromised PubPeer (aka PubSmear) platform do not resolve the core issue.
No one disputed that a single consent form may have referenced:
• mouth
• nose
• skin
• gut
• genitals
The actual concern is far more serious:
📌 Did a 2013 IRB approval legitimately cover a later commercial vaginal diagnostic study involving:
• HPV genotyping
• STI detection
• reproductive health data
• clinical interpretation
• commercialization of a marketed assay
Those are not merely different body sites.
They involve materially different:
• risk profiles
• privacy sensitivity
• study objectives
• regulatory obligations
Under normal IRB standards, that typically requires:
✅ protocol amendments
✅ continuing review records
✅ updated approval documentation
Yet in both papers the authors cite the exact same approval: IRB Study #13044 (05/10/2013)
And importantly, Bik herself admits:
“I do not have access to any official IRB ethical approval documents.”
So what was provided was only:
❌ a general participant consent form
—not—
❌ the actual IRB protocol
❌ renewal notices
❌ amendment approvals
❌ scope documentation
⚠️ A consent form is not proof of regulatory approval.
If the protocol was truly renewed yearly, the obvious question remains:
❓ Why do both papers still cite only the original 2013 approval date with no amendment history disclosed anywhere in the publication record?
Her reply addresses the body-site issue.
It does not resolve the protocol-scope issue.
🚨 The question remains: Why has PLOS ONE still not retracted these two fraudulent uBiome papers co-authored by Elisabeth M. Bik, despite clear IRB scope violations, undisclosed massive conflicts of interest with a federally indicted company, invalid clinical claims, data integrity failures, and the permanent loss of raw data?
⚠️ These institutions and individuals are among those which have amplified and platformed Bik — some systematically despite her own documented fraud and glaring hypocrisy, others recklessly and apparently unaware of her misconduct. Consider this a courtesy warning in light of the increasing demand by the academic community for accountability and transparency:
@Nature @ScienceMagazine @NewsfromScience @senseaboutsci @SenseScienceUSA @Einstein_Berlin @ChemistryWorld @unibern @NaturePlants @Andy_Tattersall @ERoseEngland @cremieuxrecueil @WCRIFoundation @MarionKoopmans
#ElisabethBik #PubPeerScandal #ResearchIntegrity #PLOSONE #ScienceFraud #ScienceHypocrisy
ScienceGuardians™ 🔱
🚨 Why has PLOS ONE still not retracted these two fraudulent uBiome papers co-authored by Elisabeth M. Bik — despite:
• clear IRB scope violations
• undisclosed massive conflicts of interest with a federally indicted company
• invalid clinical claims
• data integrity failures
• and the permanent loss of raw data?
@PLOS @PLOSONE @C0PE — Selective enforcement undermines trust in the entire publishing system.
#ElisabethBik #PubPeerScandal
ScienceGuardians™ 🔱
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
🔱 True empowerment in academia means giving researchers fair, transparent tools — not more gatekeeping or anonymous attacks.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Post-Publication Peer Review platform is built on these core principles:
1️⃣ Verified participation, with optional anonymity (real credentials — no fake armies, no orchestrated harassment, no dossier-building)
2️⃣ One individual, one account (no sock-puppet coordination)
3️⃣ Zero moderation, zero content suppression — every contribution by verified users is published as submitted
4️⃣ Respectful and balanced dialogue
5️⃣ Constructive engagement first — authors are given time to respond
6️⃣ Open to verified experts with relevant knowledge
7️⃣ Institutional participation enabled — journal editors, publishers, universities, and research institutions can create verified accounts
8️⃣ Completely free — no hidden fees, no subscriptions, no paid dashboards
This is how we reclaim post-publication review for the academic community: accountable, fearless, and truly open.
No more suppression. No more weaponized processes. Just evidence-based discourse that strengthens science.
🔱 Join and become a ScienceGuardian:
🌐 scienceguardians.com
Replying to @SciGuardians @Nature
7/7 About ScienceGuardians™ 🔱
ScienceGuardians™ operates through a dedicated team of highly skilled data and IT professionals extensively trained in academic publishing, ethics, and research integrity. The platform is further supported by senior scientists, legal advisors, and ethics experts. This structure ensures both deep technical understanding and, importantly, complete independence from the conflicts of interest that often compromise internal processes within the publishing ecosystem.
Publicly available platforms and products:
🔱 First Fully Verified Journal Club & Post-Publication Peer Review Platform
🌐 scienceguardians.com
🔱 Ethics Guidelines, Tools, and Trainings (available for free):
🌐 scienceguardians.com/docs/ma…
📢 Register for free at scienceguardians.com and become a ScienceGuardian yourself.
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
WTF @FrontiersIn?
You can't put an expression of concern on a hypothesis paper - it's a hypothesis!
▶️Was this EoC was generated solely by Elisabeth Bik?
▶️If so, did Bik declare her conflict of interest involvement in uBiome?
frontiersin.org/articles/10.…
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
And here we are.
Instead of answering the charge, Lizzy blocked me.
That's fine.
It just means that she now cannot respond.
This looks really bad.
#poogate
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
Well I hadn't expected that.
The famous "scientific fraud buster" who never seems to question #BigPharma...
@MicrobiomDigest
Is herself the co-author of a paper by a group charged with fraud. A lot of fraud.
$99m worth.
Holy cow.
great video making a lot of the arguments i have been
🚨🚨 We previously exposed the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob's signature tactic:
'Working in coordination with fellow network members, they employ the mob’s signature tactic of the ‘PARTIAL TRUTH’ —selectively highlighting fragments of information to construct PUBPEER (aka ‘PUBSMEAR’) dossiers against the scientists they target. Along the way, many additional researchers become collateral damage, serving to conceal the network’s primary targets.'
⚠️ And their central distortion:
'Their central tactic is to falsely equate the number of PubPeer entries with the number of fraudulent papers upon which their harassment, smearing, and defamation campaigns stand — a deliberate distortion designed to mislead the academic community, media, and institutions.'
📌Now Nobel Laureate Thomas C. Südhof confirms the real damage in his Lindau 2025 lecture:
'The cost to especially junior scientists has been enormous... Does it matter if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it?'
Every scientist, researcher, and postgraduate student needs to know about this scandal.
What we’ve exposed is only the tip of the iceberg.
Watch our 9-min bombshell + @NobelPrize Laureate @Stanford Professor Thomas C. Südhof's Lindau 2025 lecture segment below 👇
Watch it. Spread it. Far more is coming. Stay tuned.
@SciGuardians 🔱
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
🚨 Following the documented appearance of John and Laura Arnold within the category labeled “Close Friends” in the Connection Web contained in U.S. Department of Justice–held Epstein Library (DOJ File No.: EFTA01104262), ScienceGuardians™ has granted Arnold Ventures LLC, and its principals Laura and John Arnold, a 14-day professional courtesy period to conduct an internal audit and clarify the role their financial resources have played in enabling over a decade of harassment, smearing, and defamation.
These activities have been carried out through the PubPeer Foundation—operator of the compromised dossier-making platform PubPeer, widely known among the academic community as “PubSmear”—and Retraction Watch, the institutional arm of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob, operating under the guise of “research integrity,” and designed to control academia and scientific narratives through reputational coercion and systematic manipulation of the post-publication ecosystem.
This is a limited opportunity to ensure transparency, take accountability, and publicly correct the record.
1 day remaining.
🔱 Follow @SciGuardians to be empowered.
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
ScienceGuardians™ — Restoring Power to the Academic Community and Eliminating the Plagues Corrupting Science
ScienceGuardians™ exists to serve and empower the true backbone of science: the more than 20 million authors, reviewers, and editors whose intellectual labor sustains global scientific progress, yet who have been systematically exploited, structurally disempowered, and economically excluded for decades.
Science does not belong to publishers.
Science does not belong to foundations.
Science belongs to those who create it.
Authors produce the knowledge.
Reviewers safeguard its validity.
Editors ensure its integrity.
Yet these indispensable contributors receive literally zero economic participation in the multibillion-dollar industry built upon their uncompensated labor.
Instead, parasitic intermediaries operating under the label of “academic publishers” have constructed extraordinarily profitable business models by extracting free intellectual labor while retaining nearly all financial value.
Major academic publishing corporations—including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, MDPI, and Frontiers—generate billions of dollars annually in revenue and maintain profit margins rivaling or exceeding those of many of the world’s most successful technology companies.
They achieve this not through superior innovation, but through structural deprivation of the very stakeholders upon whom their entire business depends.
Authors surrender copyright ownership of their work without compensation.
Reviewers provide expert evaluation without compensation.
Editors assume enormous responsibility without proportional compensation.
Publishers then monetize this uncompensated labor by charging both the public and the academic institutions funded by taxpayers to access the same work created freely by researchers.
This structural exploitation created an ecosystem of profound imbalance—an ecosystem within which additional systemic plagues were able to emerge and proliferate.
The Structural Reality: Individuals and Foundations Are Not the Center of Science — The Academic Community Is
Science and the academic community do not depend on any individual benefactor.
Science and the academic community do not depend on any foundation.
Science existed before them, and science will exist after them.
The academic community itself is the foundation of science, and does not require external control or oversight to correct itself. It is a dynamic system fully capable of self-correction when properly empowered.
No individual actor, intermediary, or financial entity is structurally important relative to the collective force of millions of researchers whose work sustains scientific progress.
The Plagues Corrupting Academia
ScienceGuardians™ has identified six systemic plagues that have metastasized within this disempowered environment:
1. Predatory Publishers and Journals
2. Predatory Practices by So-Called Legitimate Publishers and Journals
3. Paper Mills
4. The PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob
5. Predatory Conferences
6. Reckless and Compromised Scientific Journalism
These plagues do not exist in isolation. They operate symbiotically, exploiting the structural vulnerability of researchers while shielding themselves behind institutional legitimacy and financial backing.
Among these, the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob represents one of the most deliberately constructed and systemically harmful forces.
This network consists of approximately thirty individuals, including non-academics and low-profile actors who have exploited the disempowered academic ecosystem for personal and institutional gain.
Operating under the public guise of “research integrity,” this network has engaged in coordinated reputational attacks, targeted harassment, narrative manipulation, and systematic exploitation of structural asymmetries within academia.
Major enabling infrastructure for this ecosystem—including the PubPeer Foundation and Retraction Watch—has received sustained financial support through Arnold Ventures LLC (formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation).
ScienceGuardians™ acknowledges that philanthropic contributors may not always have full operational visibility into downstream conduct enabled by their financial resources.
Accordingly, we extend John Arnold and Laura Arnold the professional courtesy of assuming that their financial resources may have been deployed without their full awareness of downstream operational consequences.
However, structural responsibility cannot be separated from financial enablement.
Financial enablement carries an obligation of oversight.
Financial enablement carries an obligation of accountability.
Financial enablement carries an obligation of correction when harm has been enabled.
Opportunity for Transparency, Audit, and Public Accountability
ScienceGuardians™, on behalf of the academic community, formally invites Arnold Ventures LLC to conduct a comprehensive internal audit of all funding relationships connected to entities operating within the post-publication and research integrity ecosystem.
This audit should determine:
• How financial resources were deployed
• Whether those resources enabled systemic harassment or reputational manipulation
• Whether corrective actions are necessary
ScienceGuardians™ further invites public disclosure of audit findings and appropriate corrective measures, including public clarification and acknowledgment of harm where applicable.
A reasonable timeframe for such review and disclosure is fourteen (14) days starting from the date of this official announcement.
This notice is issued in good faith and as a professional courtesy to enable transparency and correction.
For clarity and factual precision, the Connection Web referenced in our recent analysis originates from evidence held within U.S. Department of Justice-associated Epstein Library archives (File No.: EFTA01104262). As with any such material, appearance within a network map does not, by itself, imply wrongdoing, and proper interpretation requires full contextual understanding.
What remains relevant is the broader, well-documented pattern of efforts by certain billionaire actors to influence and control scientific and academic ecosystems, which appropriately invites scrutiny of associated institutional relationships and enabling structures, including those connected to Arnold Ventures LLC.
ScienceGuardians™: Institutional Authority Rooted in the Academic Community
ScienceGuardians™ is operated by a dedicated team of highly skilled data and IT professionals who have undergone extensive training in academic publishing, ethics, and integrity. While not publishing authors themselves, these experts have been thoroughly educated in the full lifecycle of academic publication, including peer review, authorship standards, conflict of interest management, editorial workflows, and scientific misconduct prevention.
ScienceGuardians™ has developed the first Fully Verified Post-Publication Peer Review Platform, where academics can interact freely—without moderation or censorship and without fear of harassment or intimidation—available at scienceguardians.com.
In parallel, ScienceGuardians™ provides comprehensive ethical guidelines, training resources, and educational infrastructure designed to empower the academic community and eradicate misconduct through structural reform and awareness, available at scienceguardians.com/docs/ma….
ScienceGuardians™ is entirely self-sustained. It receives no corporate sponsorship and accepts no cash donations. Its operations are supported through the voluntary contributions of senior scientists, legal advisors, and ethics and integrity experts who have chosen to waive their professional fees in support of restoring fairness, accountability, and integrity to the academic ecosystem.
Final Professional Courtesy Notice
This announcement is issued as a final professional courtesy to all actors whose financial resources, institutional infrastructure, or operational support may have enabled systemic harm within the academic ecosystem.
We are fully aware of the identities of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob, their enablers, and their promoters across multiple jurisdictions worldwide. These include actors embedded within compromised editorial structures, affiliated media channels, research integrity offices within academic publishing organizations, and complicit or compromised academic actors operating within institutional environments.
We have documented these operational structures, identified enabling mechanisms, and securely archived extensive evidence concerning coordinated activities, systemic exploitation, and reputational manipulation.
Transparency and corrective action remain the responsible path forward.
ScienceGuardians™ remains committed to restoring integrity, protecting researchers, and eliminating the systemic plagues corrupting academia.
The academic community is no longer structurally defenseless.
The era of unchecked exploitation is ending.
ScienceGuardians™
The First Fully Verified Post-Publication Review Platform
🔱 Empowering Researchers. Restoring Integrity. Eliminating the Plagues Corrupting Academia. 🔱
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
Irán ha fabricado 150.000 de estos en 25 años
Podrían lanzar 100 al día durante 4 años y aún tendrían miles
Sin contar los que están fabricando
Sinceramente,esto es lo más parecido a la lluvia de fuego sobre sodoma y gomorra que han visto los judíos 👹👇
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
The Devil’s greatest trick was convincing people he isn’t real.
But he Israel.
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
Replying to @FurkanGozukara
Why don’t you tag the real tweet? Give Ricky some credit here:
xitter.cf/rickytheguido/status/2…
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
🚨 « Le « réseau de connexions » d'Epstein qui a fuité (fichier EFTA01104262) désigne explicitement Laura Arnold et John Arnold comme ses amis proches, révélant le chevauchement inquiétant des réseaux de ces milliardaires prédateurs qui alimentent leurs opérations d'influence scientifique.
La « machine à intégrité de la recherche » financée par les Arnold, alias le réseau PubPeer « PubSmear », reprend les méthodes du ResearchGate de Gates et Epstein… mais déploie un mécanisme bien plus insidieux : les rétractations forcées et les campagnes de diffamation ciblées pour contrôler le discours scientifique et universitaire.
Consultez le site web accablant (notez la section « Amis proches »).
🔱 Suivez @SciGuardians pour rester informé et autonome. »
🚨 Epstein's leaked "Connections Web" (File EFTA01104262) explicitly labels Laura Arnold and John Arnold as his Close Friends—exposing the chilling overlap in these predator billionaires' networks that power their science influence operations.
The Arnolds-funded "Research Integrity Machine", aka the PubPeer "PubSmear" Network Mob, mirrors the Gates-Epstein ResearchGate playbook... but deploys a far more insidious mechanism: forced retractions and targeted smears for narrative control in science and academia.
See the damning web (note the "Close Friends" section).
🔱 Follow @SciGuardians to stay informed and empowered.
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
PubSmear tried to hide their Arnold Foundation funding initially and other people reported their blatant censorship.
researchgate.net/profile/Jai…
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
Exactly as we warned:
🚨 THE TRUE FREEFALL OF NATURE 🚨
When a platform like @Nature, through its compromised Chief Editor (Careers), Jack Leeming, and journalist Christine Ro, opts to systematically promote Lonni Besançon, a mob member with a documented pattern of s-e-x-u-a-l-l-y degrading harassment (see 📸 Image 1) as a role model for research integrity—a perpetrator who has the audacity to threaten members of the academic community with having their papers retracted (see 📸 Image 2) through a criminal network, the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob, now fully exposed and documented by the @SciGuardians legal and investigative team—does one really expect this platform to embody integrity?
🔗 Original exposé: xitter.cf/SciGuardians/status/19…
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
um, it seems that Sci-Hub .se domain has been finally blocked.
P.S. You can access Sci-Hub by alternative addresses such as sci-hub.ru (yes, this world needs alternative DNS and independent legal systems to ensure freedom - not a single world government)
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
🚨 Follow-up: BOMBSHELL SCIENCE INTEGRITY SCANDAL – 12 JAN 2026
On 17 Nov 2025, we, at @SciGuardians, exposed PubPeer’s compromise: 100% censorship of Retraction- or Expression of Concern-level critiques on 17 of the fake “science integrity consultant” Elisabeth M Bik’s and her network’s papers. Watch the attached 9-minute video — rigged “integrity” proven.
🚨 But there is another side to this scandal:
How Bik’s thousands of fraudulent “PubSmear” entries (>10,000 PubPeer entries under her real name and fake aliases, such as Lotus azoricus) have enforced hundreds of unjust retractions, while fatal errors in her own papers remain 100% censored.
Exhibit A: In April 2025, Bik targeted a decade-old paper (2015): “Identification of ERAD components essential for dislocation of the null Hong Kong variant of α-1-antitrypsin (NHK)” — Biochem Biophys Res Commun, DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.01.133, PubMed: 25660456. Authors: Yongwang Zhong et al., attempting to insinuate image manipulation of 10-year-old blots (see Image 1), indicating “similar/mirror image.”
However, in this specific case, the authors were fortunate enough to have access to their original data recorded 10 years ago (See Image 1). ⚠️ Otherwise, their paper would likely have been sunk by Bik—simply retracted—like hundreds of other old papers she has led to this fate.
📌 The PubPeer “PubSmear” entry has been documented and archived—scan the QR code in Image 1 to access it.
She is then called out:
"Dr. Bik, I cannot imagine what consequences your arbitrary misjudgment would bring to this paper and its authors if the authors had lost the original data due to various reasons. Can a simple word of thanks make up for your mistake?"
...and subsequently defended by a fellow Network Mob member, Kaveh Bazargan, operating under a fake alias, Illex illecebrosus (a fraudulent Iranian-British national with deep, documented conflicts of interest, who under this alias alone has contributed over 5,000 PubPeer entries — We will expose this perpetrator further soon. Stay tuned) (See Image 2: Bik and Bazargan, photographed together in a visibly close, familiar pose).
⚠️ While this exchange was staged to whitewash Bik’s already compromised reputation—as previously exposed through documented coordination with PubPeer "PubSmear" moderators—it backfired catastrophically, leading to a loud and unavoidable conclusion:
🛑 Every single paper retracted due to Bik’s accusations of image manipulation must now be reinvestigated by genuine image-forensic experts, and the respective authors must have the right to pursue legal action for reputational harm and consequent career damage.
Watch it. Spread it. The mask is shattered.
#ElisabethBik #PubPeerScandal #PubSmear #Breaking #News #ScienceFraud #ScienceHypocrisy #ImageForensics
@SciGuardians🔱
@SecKennedy @DrJBhattacharya @HHS_ORI @NIH @C0PE @UKRIO @Clarivate @ClarivateAG @timeshighered @ElsevierConnect @Scopus @SpringerNature @WeAreTandF @tandfonline @WileyGlobal @PLOS @ScienceMagazine @TheLancet @Nature @USDAScience @FrontiersIn @AIP_Publishing @CellCellPress @Sage_Publishing @ACSPublications @AmerChemSociety @RoySocChem @theNASciences @APSphysics @ORCID_Org @DOAJplus @CrossrefOrg @aaas @sciam @ChemRxiv @Science_Open
🚨BOMBSHELL SCIENCE INTEGRITY SCANDAL – 17 NOV 2025
Elisabeth M. Bik – the fake “science integrity consultant” who brags about >10,000 PubPeer comments – has spent years stalking, smearing, and destroying careers of researchers she targets.
But dare post a single critical comment on HER papers or her inner-circle mob?
100 % CENSORED.
17 of her and her collaborators’ papers flagged → 17 comments instantly blocked.
One slipped through on 23 Nov 2024 → ERASED after exactly 10 days (3 Dec 2024).
The queen of PubSmear just got caught rigging the game to protect herself and her network.
9-minute total exposure with screenshots, DOIs, and receipts just dropped.
Watch it. Spread it. The mask is shattered.
#ElisabethBik #PubPeerScandal #PubSmear #Breaking #News #ScienceFraud #ScienceHypocrisy #ImageForensics
@SciGuardians 🔱
Zr. Nabu Kudurru retweeted
Scientists Who Use AI Become Stunningly More Productive
In a new paper that just appeared, the authors found that researchers who use large language models (LLMs) become stunningly more productive. An analysis of more than 2 million papers revealed that those who adopt AI increase their paper output on average by 40%. For non-native English speakers it’s even more, up to 80%.
The scary part is that this is data only until July 2024, when scientists used LLMs mostly for writing. It is foreseeable that in the next few years the AI-adoption rate will go to nearly 100% across all scientific disciplines, resulting in more papers than ever and putting significant strain on peer review.
Source: Kusumegi et al, Science 390, 6779, 1240 (2025)



































