1/14 🚨 BOMBSHELL: Bill Gates & Jeffrey Epstein weren’t just “donating to science”…
They were secretly buying CONTROL over what scientists discover, share, and believe — through a platform you probably use: ResearchGate.
Leaked insider documents expose the real playbook: influence + money + power disguised as “helping science.”
This changes everything.
🧵 Thread starts now.
Stay till the end — the full pattern & proof will blow your mind.
#ResearchGate #EpsteinFiles #ScienceForSale #BillionairesBuyingScience
2/14 What is ResearchGate exactly?
Think Facebook — but for scientists. A free site where researchers connect, share papers (often full PDFs), ask questions, and team up on ideas.
Over 25 million members worldwide right now! 🔥
Sounds helpful? Sure. But leaked insider docs reveal it's built as a for-profit business to make big money from science.
Gates invested $10M in 2013 — not pure charity, but a savvy "digital platform" bet. Like owning LinkedIn... but for the brains shaping our world.
Control the platform → control the flow of scientific ideas.
3/14 The shady part: Contracts link personal profits to ResearchGate's value growing.
Gates' advisor (Boris Nikolic) could cash in based on how much the company's worth rises. Even big "advances" like $2.5M-$10M mentioned.
This creates huge motivation to hype it up—boost users, news buzz, and prices. Why? More value = more payouts.
⚠️ It's like insider trading vibes in science.
4/14 Now it gets really shady: Epstein was in the loop.
Leaked emails from Nikolic (Gates' top science advisor) to Jeffrey Epstein share insider secrets:
"I will know in 2-3 weeks when is next round plan and for how much."
Plus endless hype blasts:
"Some good news — ResearchGate is making major progress… A flurry of news just started!"
"Just today… This will be a major breakthrough for the future of ResearchGate."
"[@ScienceMagazine] Science article on ResearchGate!"
This isn't friendly chit-chat. It's feeding Epstein real-time investment timing + press momentum to keep the excitement (and valuations) pumping.
Why would Gates' team loop a convicted sex offender into science funding details? Extremely suspicious.🚩
5/14 And the emails keep coming: Nikolic floods Epstein with glowing press clips on ResearchGate — like pieces from @Nature magazine highlighting it as "ResearchGate is winning."
⚠️ This is classic narrative grooming: Constantly push stories that make the platform look unstoppable → attract more users, investors, and hype.
Hype → more growth → more power over what scientists see and share.
Simple equation with massive stakes.
P.S. See how compromised @Nature really is? Read our previous exposé "The True Freefall of Nature," where its compromised editor and journalist (Jack Leeming & Christine Ro) promote Lonni Besançon—a PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob member with documented s-e-x-u-a-l-l-y degrading harassment—as a "research integrity" role model. He even threatens academics with retractions via its criminal network. Full thread: x.com/SciGuardians/s…
6/14 All that growth & hype? Here's how ResearchGate turns it into real money
Their own business plans lay it out:
• Targeted ads from pharma & lab suppliers (click the tool in a paper → buy it)
• Job boards & recruitment listings (headhunters pay big)
• Premium subscriptions for individuals & universities (analytics, no ads, advanced search)
• Early vision for a marketplace selling lab products/services
It's not just a helpful sharing site — it's a machine that captures scientists' attention and monetizes it.
Now think: On your feed, who decides which paper pops up first? Algorithms do — exactly like Instagram or YouTube.
⚠️ Whoever controls those algorithms [you read: Gates and Epstein] can quietly steer what research gets seen, what gets buried, and what becomes "the next big thing."
7/14 Why would billionaires like Gates & Epstein crave this kind of power?
Owning a hub like ResearchGate lets them shape what research explodes into the spotlight — and what quietly fades away.
Control the feeds & recommendations = quietly steer:
• What scientists chase & publish next
• What projects get grants & funding
• What the public is told is “solid science”
It’s not heavy-handed censorship — it’s subtle, invisible steering of ideas, trends, and “truths.”
Your TikTok/Instagram feed already molds your worldview…
Now imagine the same game running science.
Who decides what counts as breakthrough? Who decides what gets buried?
8/14 Deeper level: This same power gives billionaires real leverage over the giants of scientific publishing too.
Big academic publishers like @ElsevierConnect, @SpringerNature, and @WeAreTandF decide what gets officially published — and what gets rejected outright — shaping the dominant narratives in science and society.
But ResearchGate owns the "end flow": After publication, users upload millions of full PDFs (160M+ publication pages today), letting anyone read papers for free and bypassing expensive paywalls.
Publishers despised this — they sued ResearchGate for massive copyright violations (Elsevier + American Chemical Society cases starting 2017, fought for years, finally settled 2023 with special sharing agreements).
Bottom line: When a platform controls how research is actually seen and shared at massive scale, publishers have to play ball — partner, compromise, or lose traffic/relevance.
⚠️ Whoever owns ResearchGate (RG) can quietly pressure the gatekeepers themselves.
9/14 Proof this leverage is real? History shows it: Publishers now partner with ResearchGate instead of fighting forever.
• Springer Nature: Long-term content syndication (since 2019) — full-text articles show up on RG profiles.
• Taylor & Francis: Expanded "Journal Home" deal to 800 journals (as of Feb 2026) — boosts visibility & open access on RG.
• Elsevier/ACS: Sued for years → settled 2023 with automated upload checks & compliant sharing tools.
⚠️ Control the sharing hub → publishers must cooperate or lose eyeballs/traffic.
Billionaires [Gates/Epstein crew] win big: Steer narratives across the ecosystem without owning a single journal.
10/14 🚨 Not just Gates & Epstein — meet the Arnolds.
Billionaire "philanthropists" via Arnold Ventures have quietly poured millions into the very tools that police scientific narratives:
• Center for Open Science (COS) — $5.25 million launch grant in 2013 + $7.5 million in 2016 + $2.625 million in 2019 (and other grants, totaling over $25 million cumulatively) for open infrastructure, reproducibility, and research transparency tools.
• Retraction Watch (produced by The Center for Scientific Integrity — CSI) — grants (e.g., $300,000 in 2015) for tracking retractions & database builds, with CSI partnering closely with COS.
• PubPeer — operating support ($412,000 in 2016 + $150,000 in 2019) for anonymous post-pub commenting.
⚠️ These three are closely linked through funding, partnerships, and overlapping figures like Ivan Oransky (co-founder/executive director of CSI/Retraction Watch, PubPeer board member).
Sounds like boosting integrity?
But look closer: These investments build an ecosystem critics say weaponizes retractions to enforce "approved" narratives — followed by coordinated smearing campaigns via PubPeer "PubSmear" Network Mob to silence dissenters.
They fund the watchdogs → decide what gets retracted → orchestrate defamation to protect the circle.
Same elite playbook: Control the referees to control the game.
11/14 Pattern emerging: The billionaire-backed so-called “integrity” machine (COS, CSI/Retraction Watch, PubPeer) protects its insiders while targeting outsiders to enforce narratives.
🚨 Proof in our bombshell from last November (17 Nov 2025):
Elisabeth M. Bik — the fake “science integrity consultant” with >10,000 PubPeer comments — has spent years stalking, smearing, and ruining careers.
But flag HER papers or her mob’s?
100% censored.
17 critical comments on her & collaborators’ work → all instantly blocked.
One slipped through (23 Nov 2024) → erased after exactly 10 days (3 Dec 2024).
⚠️ The PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob rigs the game to shield itself.
Watch the full 9-minute exposure with screenshots, DOIs, and receipts: x.com/SciGuardians/s…
Double standards exposed. These “watchdogs” aren’t neutral — they’re enforcers.
#PubSmearExposed — Watch & RT!
12/14 Pattern emerging loud and clear:
Gates & Epstein → control through platforms like ResearchGate (sharing, feeds, visibility).
Arnolds → control through so-called “integrity” institutions (COS, CSI/Retraction Watch, PubPeer — retractions, smears, censorship).
Both: Twist science for power, markets, and perception.
Not help — hijack.
From Epstein shadows to “charity” fronts, it's elite games.
⚠️ To pull it off, they need complicit academics, compromised editors, and journalists on payroll.
Science should be free — not for sale.
13/14 🔱 Fight back — reclaim science from the gatekeepers.
Follow @SciGuardians for:
• Investigative leaks & exposés on corruption
• Tips to spot & resist narrative manipulation
• Tools to defend your work & ethics
ScienceGuardians™ — The First Fully Verified Journal Club & Post-Publication Peer Review Platform
🌐 scienceguardians.com
ScienceGuardians™ — Empowering the global academic community with public tools and ethics guidelines
🌐 scienceguardians.com/docs/main/
Together, we break the chains.
Join us. RT & follow now!
14/14 END THREAD. Mind blown yet?
RT if this woke you up. Comment your thoughts. Let's make it go viral — science belongs to us, not the gatekeepers.
🔱@SciGuardians
#EpsteinFiles #ArnoldVentures #PubSmear #ElisabethBik #LonniBesançon #RetractionWatch #IvanOransky #ResearchEthics #ImageForensics #Fraud #ScienceCorruption #Breaking
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.