Post

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Feb 9 • 14 tweets • 9 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @SciGuardians

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Apr 26

1/8 🚨 Empowering Fraudulent Actors Can Destroy Lives, Institutions, and Public Trust

Fraudulent and predatory actors rarely rise alone.

They are often elevated by influential institutions, respected professionals, and powerful voices who lend credibility before exercising proper due diligence.

In this video, during the @UN roundtable 'Healthy Oceans and Seas: a way forward' on 4 February 2014 (co-hosted by the Sustainable Oceans Alliance, the governments of Italy and Palau, and the Global Partnerships Forum), Amir Dossal — Chairman of the Global Partnerships Forum, Co-Chair of the Sustainable Oceans Alliance, and a former 25-year UN veteran who served as Executive Director of the UN Office for Partnerships — publicly introduces Ghislaine Maxwell — Jeffrey Epstein’s closest accomplice — as:

“the person who has been the inspiration behind the Sustainable Oceans Alliance…”

and then as:

“my dear friend, Ghislaine Maxwell.”

⚠️ That is how dangerous people can become normalized: when the failure to perform due diligence does not merely create error, but enables harm on a far larger scale.

⚠️ And this pattern is not confined to exploiting the Ocean Alliance to help shield s-e-x trafficking.

The same reckless enabling can emerge anywhere influence is used to protect the wrong people from scrutiny — even in the very field that claims to defend scientific integrity.

🚨 On 17 Nov 2025, we exposed the PubPeer "PubSmear" Network Mob and its public face, Elisabeth M. Bik, the fake “science integrity consultant”, who has spent years stalking, smearing, and helping destroy the careers of researchers she targets — by weaponizing a deeply compromised, so-called post-publication peer review platform, PubPeer (aka PubSmear) that is continuously amplified by the institutional arm of the mob network, Retraction Watch.

Both of these corrupt organizations (the PubPeer Foundation & Retraction Watch) are riddled with enormous conflicts of interest in management and leadership — with Ivan Oransky positioned at the center of those conflicts as a board member (director) of the PubPeer Foundation and co-founder (and former executive) of Retraction Watch.

We publicly released the FULL EVIDENCE PACKAGE detailing how Bik and the PubPeer "PubSmear" Network Mob have weaponized "research integrity" to 100% censor critiques of their own flawed work while relentlessly targeting others (🔗 link to the full evidence package in Part 5 of this thread).

📌 But figures this deeply compromised do not rise alone.

They are often elevated by those who recklessly endorse them, enable them, and empower them without asking the questions that should have been asked from the beginning.

📢🧵 Read the thread to see who helped make it possible.

2/8 🚨 How False Authority Was Manufactured for Elisabeth M. Bik, the Fake “Science Integrity Consultant”

The key was her repeated amplification framed as unimpeachable authority, even when her methods, incentives, or conduct were not independently scrutinized.

📌 On 14 May 2020, Eric Topol (@EricTopol), a prominent scientific voice wrote:

“…, the super sleuth
‘We cannot, unfortunately, clone Elisabeth’ …”

and added:

“she’s way ahead of where we are w/ deep neural networks far”

Later, on 30 October 2020, Topol stated:

“The #1 sleuth of life science data manipulation and imaging fraud, ..... She reviews what she’s learned and lays out what needs to change …”

These are not neutral references.

They are public acts of reputation construction — framing a single individual as the definitive authority in a complex and sensitive domain of research integrity.

⚠️ When such repeated messaging is combined with institutional visibility, it can create a powerful perception:

that scrutiny is unnecessary

that methodology is unquestionable

and that dissenting evaluation is illegitimate

But when that perceived authority is later shown to be compromised and fraudulent, the consequences are not abstract.
They can include:

• reputational destruction of targeted researchers
• suppression of legitimate critique
• distortion of scientific accountability systems
• and long-term erosion of trust in research integrity itself

3/8 🚨 On 9 May 2021, Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing)—an epidemiologist widely known for his highly viral COVID-era presence on social media—described Elisabeth M. Bik — the fake “science integrity consultant” — as:

“a hero as a detective against scientific fraud”
and urged scientists to sign a support letter.

📌 The key significance is not scientific validation, but amplification through high public reach within science-adjacent and media-linked networks. His posts regularly circulated beyond academic audiences during COVID, meaning his endorsement functioned primarily as a distribution and framing mechanism, rapidly elevating visibility and shaping perception across those circles.

In that context, the impact stems less from formal authority and more from how effectively his platform can propagate reputational framing at scale, especially in the absence of broader due diligence before amplification.

Read 8 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Apr 12

🚨 Elisabeth Bik’s Bombshell Scandals Unfolding

Is Elisabeth Bik really important?

Absolutely not.

📢 But here’s why exposing her matters:

She represents a deceptive layer of a mob network, with fraudulent organizations — the PubPeer Foundation and Retraction Watch — as its main pillars, actively defrauding the academic community under the guise of “research integrity.”

She has been effectively curated since her recruitment in 2020 to serve as the face of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob operation: selective targeting of certain scientists and researchers for personal and institutional gains, through controlling the academic job market, academic funds and grants, share values of the related industries, and finally controlling the scientific narratives. ⚠️ This has never been about genuine science integrity. It is a carefully managed narrative designed to mislead the academic community.

We designated Bik as a fake “science integrity consultant” with little knowledge about academia and research integrity.

📌 Her attack on Boris (Bruce) Kriger (@brucekriger) on April 9, 2026 is a clear indication why this designation is 100% accurate.

1/7
🧵 Thread starts here.
Read through to see how a normal science and philosophy enthusiast, who is not in any way a member of the conventional/traditional academic community, is smeared by Bik, as an attempt to regain her declining traction on social media, following ScienceGuardians™’ exposures.

2/7 Who is Boris Kriger that Bik has targeted?

Boris Kriger is simply a science and philosophy enthusiast.

He writes and self-publishes his ideas.

He has zero peer-reviewed publications.

He has zero record on Scopus or Web of Science.

He is not and has never been affiliated with any established academic institutions or universities.

His so-called “Doctoral Thesis” titled A Unified Structural Theory of Complex Systems (656 pages, presented as fulfillment of a PhD in Systems Science / Theoretical Foundations of Complex Systems), is entirely self-published with no university, supervisor, defense committee, or established academic institution involved — it is presented solely under his own self-created micro-institutes. Hence, as long as has not used this self-awarded “PhD” to defraud any actual institution, grant agency, employer, or official academic application (i.e., he is not submitting it as a credential from a recognized university to secure a real academic position, funding, or any regulated benefit), then, it is not fraud in any legal sense, and is his personal business.

He is also a former Orthodox priest (Father Boris Kriger) who served in the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese, founded churches, and worked on humanitarian and educational projects in the greater Toronto area.

3/7 Boris Kriger has created profiles on Google Scholar and ResearchGate—platforms that allow individuals to set up public pages with limited verification.

While widely used, these platforms contain loopholes that can be exploited, such as the ability to create profiles without rigorous identity checks, misattribute publications, or upload non-peer-reviewed or unverifiable documents.

As a result, they do not offer the same level of curation and validation as formal academic indexing services.

Read 7 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Apr 3

1/7 🚨 BREAKING: Paid Agents Meddling in Health & Medical Sciences – The Grave Human Cost (and Why the Self-Appointed “Integrity” Watchdogs Are Part of the Problem)

For decades, powerful companies have used paid agents to shape the scientific record on products tied to public health.

⚠️ When those hidden conflicts surface years later, journals retract the papers — but the damage is already done: delayed warnings, continued exposure, and thousands of preventable cancers.

We start with two recent retractions that expose exactly how this works.

🧵 Thread starts now.
Stay till the end — the paid agents, the human cost, and the rigged “integrity” system will be fully exposed.

#ElisabethBik #PubPeerScandal #PubSmear #Breaking #News #ScienceFraud #ScienceHypocrisy #ImageForensics

2/7 Case 1: The Lancet (1977) – Talc & Asbestos

An unsigned commentary claimed cosmetic talc (even with trace asbestos) posed “no reason to believe” it caused cancer or lung issues and that future products meeting specs “will [not] present a health hazard.”

The paid agent? Cancer researcher Francis J.C. Roe — a paid consultant to Johnson & Johnson (then a major talc producer). He shared an advance draft with J&J, incorporated their feedback, and an internal J&J memo celebrated it as a tool to “allay anxieties” among regulators, doctors, and the public. Undisclosed conflict. Retracted by @TheLancet on March 25, 2026.

The human cost? J&J now faces over 67,000 lawsuits (approximately 67,115 pending in the federal MDL as of March 2026) alleging its talc products (Baby Powder, Shower to Shower) caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma due to asbestos contamination.
Recent verdicts include:

• $1.5 billion+ (Dec 2025, peritoneal mesothelioma)
• $966 million (Oct 2025, mesothelioma death)
• $40 million (Dec 2025, two ovarian cancer cases)
• Multiple others pushing 2025 mesothelioma losses alone past $2.5 billion.

J&J has proposed large settlements in the multi-billion range for ovarian cancer claims and has settled a significant portion of mesothelioma cases. Asbestos is a proven carcinogen with no safe exposure level.

⚠️ Decades of downplayed risk = real lives lost.

3/7 Case 2: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (2000) – Glyphosate/Roundup

A highly cited review concluded glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) “does not pose a health risk to humans” — no carcinogenicity, safe at typical exposures. It became a cornerstone for regulators and industry defenses.

The paid influence? Internal Monsanto documents (uncovered in litigation) showed company employees ghostwrote or heavily shaped the paper, supplied the bulk of (unpublished) data, and the listed authors had undisclosed ties. Retracted in late 2025 for “serious ethical concerns” and lack of independence.

The human cost? The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO, 2015) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), with strong links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Some analyses show up to 41% increased NHL risk.

Bayer (Monsanto’s owner) has settled nearly 100,000 claims for approximately $11 billion, with roughly 65,000 claims still active/pending as of March 2026. Bayer proposed a new $7.25 billion class settlement (announced Feb 2026, with preliminary approval in early March) for current and future NHL claims.

⚠️ Farmers, landscapers, and homeowners exposed for years paid the price while the “safe” narrative held.

Read 7 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Mar 23

🔱📢 REFERENCE INTEGRITY IS NOT OPTIONAL — IT IS PART OF YOUR DATA

References are not a peripheral component of a manuscript.
They are part of its evidentiary foundation — and must be treated with the same level of rigor as primary data.

Ensuring that cited work has not been retracted is not a one-time check.

It must be systematically verified at every critical stage of the publication process:

• Initial submission
• Revision and resubmission
• Final proofing — the last safeguard before publication

⚠️ Failure to do so can have serious consequences.

Citing retracted studies without proper identification, justification, and transparent contextualization may:

• Compromise the scientific rigor of the work
• Undermine the validity of conclusions
• Expose authors to post-publication corrections or retractions

Lack of awareness is not a defense.

Failure to follow structured, transparent practices is increasingly recognized as a breach of publication standards.

🔱📌 This is precisely why we released:

• The ScienceGuardians™ DOI Retraction Checker — for rapid identification
• The ScienceGuardians™ Ethical Guidelines for Independent Review and Citation of Retracted Studies — for responsible decision-making

Together, they provide a practical, field-ready framework to safeguard your work at every stage.

Do not treat references as static.
Treat them as live data requiring continuous validation.

@SciGuardians
🔱 Accountability. Integrity. Empowerment 🔱

🧵

🔗 Operational starting point: detection

🔱 ScienceGuardians™ DOI Retraction Checker enables rapid verification of the retraction status of references — in seconds.

It should be applied at every stage:

• Initial submission
• Revision
• Final proofing

A simple step — but one that is too often overlooked.scienceguardians.com/docs/main/doi-…

🔗 Decision layer: interpretation and responsible use

🔱 The ScienceGuardians™ Ethical Guidelines for Independent Review and Citation of Retracted Studies define when — and how — retracted work may be cited.

They provide:

• Structured decision-making
• Transparency requirements
• Contextualization standards

scienceguardians.com/docs/main/ethi…

Not all retracted studies are unusable — but all require explicit justification.

Read 6 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Mar 11

1/6🚨 BOMBSHELL THREAD: Arnold Ventures’ $40 Million “Science Integrity” Project Collapsed — And Its Leader Ran Straight to Jeffrey Epstein

Fourteen days ago we extended Arnold Ventures LLC and principals John & Laura Arnold a professional courtesy: 14 days to audit their funding of the major elements of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob; PubPeer Foundation and Retraction Watch, responsible for over a decade of orchestrated harassment, smearing, and defamation campaigns.

Zero response. Zero audit. Zero transparency.

Silence = admission of no accountability.

Today we drop the receipts that prove why oversight of their “research integrity” spending is not optional.

🧵 Thread starts now.
Stay till the end — the full pattern & proof will blow your mind.

#PubSmear #EpsteinFiles #ScienceForSale #BillionairesBuyingScience

2/6 Exhibit A: The Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) — Arnold Ventures’ flagship $40+ million bet on “fixing science.”

2012: $4.7 million seed grant
2013: $35.5 million multi-year commitment

Total: Over $40 million from the then-Laura and John Arnold Foundation to “solve obesity” and prove they could fund better science than everyone else.

The promise? A “Manhattan Project” for nutrition that would slash U.S. obesity by 50% and diabetes by 75% by 2025.

What actually happened?

3/6 December 10, 2015
NuSI sends a formal memo titled “NuSI Memo re: Attaining Alpha” to Arnold Ventures leadership, responding to their detailed inquiries.

👉Recipients included:
• Kelli Rhee (then rising star at Arnold, now President & CEO of Arnold Ventures)
• Stuart Buck (then VP of Research at Arnold Ventures, architect of their “research integrity” portfolio, including grants to PubPeer Foundation and Retraction Watch)
• Elizabeth Banks (CFO and Treasurer of Arnold Ventures)

December 11, 2015 — NuSI co-founder & President Peter Attia, M.D. forwards that exact memo to Jeffrey Epstein’s private email (jeevacation@gmail.com). Attia’s private commentary:

“This is what was sent out. Wait and see time.”
“Still think they want to hang me from a tree? Brutal, huh?”

Less than three weeks later: Attia quietly resigns from NuSI (end of December 2015).

Early 2016: Arnold Ventures immediately downgrades NuSI from annual contracts to short-term three-month “bridge” funding only.

The organization never recovers.
It limps along, sheds staff, and is fully dissolved on December 31, 2021.

A $40+ million “research integrity” showcase — dead.

Read 6 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Feb 11

1/7🚨 SCIENCE INTEGRITY FRAUD: BIK normalizes Epstein's disturbing infant email as “JUST AN INTERESTING STUDY”

We exposed this direct email from Mark Tramo, MD, PhD (UCLA neurologist & academic) to Jeffrey Epstein:

“Was just reading today that newborns will suck on a pacifier more vigorously if it triggers playback of a recording of her/his mother's voice than another woman's voice...”

📌 DOJ Epstein File: EFTA02221499

⚠️ Viewer discretion advised — sensitive context involving a minor and Epstein's criminal history:

Now see this DOJ-released video from the Epstein files (EFTA01648662.mp4):

31-second clip of an adult man interacting with a baby, repeatedly saying “Say hello Tootie,” “Look here,” “Tootie.”

(Note: “Tootie” is slang for female genitalia according to Urban Dictionary and other online sources, often in child or affectionate contexts.)

Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose crimes involved minors, had documented interests in eugenics and very young children. Interpretation of the video is left to the viewer.

🧵 Thread starts now.
Stay till the end — Bik’s normalization attempt and hypocrisy, institutional enablers, and the billionaire science-control pattern will shock you.

#EpsteinFiles #PubSmear

2/7 Elisabeth M. Bik (who goes under the X handle microbiomdigest), the fake “science integrity consultant,” dismissed our post presenting this as a “vague insinuation” and tried to normalize the email as merely “an interesting study.”

Her comment:
“How is a scientist sending an email to Epstein about an interesting study, proof that Epstein was seeking control of science and academia?
Another Vague Insinuation by the Vague Guardians!”

⚠️ This is classic normalization: downplaying a neurologist's direct contact with a convicted sex offender as harmless curiosity.

3/7 Who is Elisabeth M. Bik?

A fake “science integrity consultant” recruited by the Arnolds-funded “research integrity” machine to serve as the public face of the PubPeer “PubSmear Network Mob” — a group of ~30 operatives tasked with targeting and silencing dissenting voices.

She brags about >10,000 PubPeer comments — on a platform critics say is weaponized to build dossiers and orchestrate coordinated smearing & defamation campaigns.

But dare post one critical comment on HER papers or her inner-circle mob?

100% CENSORED.
17 flagged papers → 17 comments blocked.
One slipped through (23 Nov 2024) → erased after 10 days (3 Dec 2024).

Bik caught rigging the game to shield herself.

Watch the 9-minute exposure with screenshots, DOIs & receipts.

#PubSmear #ElisabethBik #ScienceCorruption