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

Jul 29, 2025

Who Watches the Watchers?
Anonymous “academic integrity watchdogs” are mounting coordinated online attacks on scientists of all stripes – with real and lasting consequences

A must-read article by @J_Strachan_Edit and Frank van Geel, published in The Analytical Scientist (@tAnaSci) on July 21, 2025.

Elias Verum contributed on behalf of ScienceGuardians™

Let`s sink in.

🧵 THREAD

"In the age of generative AI, the replication crisis, and ‘publish or perish’ pressure—amplified by growing hostility to academia—the temptation to cut corners has never been stronger."

But there’s a less discussed, yet equally damaging threat:

“A new breed of self-appointed watchdogs has emerged… launching coordinated campaigns of criticism against researchers.”

Some accusations may hold water. But more often:

“These campaigns are built on a foundation of insinuation and sheer volume—with real-world consequences: lost funding, mental health distress, and reputational harm.”

It’s in this context that ScienceGuardians™ emerged. As Strachan and van Geel write:

“The anonymous group ScienceGuardians has emerged – not to shield misconduct, they say, but to protect the integrity of the scientific process itself.”

And their message is clear:

“Critique must be grounded in evidence, not ideology; and accountability must apply to all – including those who claim to be defending it.”

So who are they—and what are they exposing?

The Silent Collapse

How integrity is being hijacked – and why science must reclaim it

By “Elias Verum” on behalf of ScienceGuardians

Science is sustained by trust—between data and interpretation, critique and fairness, openness and accountability.

But that trust is quietly eroding.

As we wrote in The Analytical Scientist:

“The architecture of scientific publishing is strained... by the rise of unverified influence, where certain actors—operating without oversight or consequence—work to shape reputations, derail careers, and distort the public record of science itself.”

This is not the future science deserves.

Read 8 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Jul 27, 2025

We recently had an exchange with a member of the academic community who has, on some occasions, contributed as a guest contributor to the derogatory blog operated by PubPeer Network Mob member Leonid Schneider. He expressed concern, asking why we were harassing his friend, Lonni Besançon, and whether he himself would be our next target.

We at ScienceGuardians™ believe the academic community deserves to know our standpoint in response to such inquiries. Therefore, we are responding to this query publicly, while protecting the identity of the individual who raised it as well as the remainder of the exchange that took place privately.

🧵 THREAD

🔱 All of the evidence ScienceGuardians™ has exposed consists of "self‑admissions" and "self‑implications" by the individuals involved. These are well archived and, at any time, can be verified by any unbiased third party. We have simply laid out the existing dots — it is up to each member of the academic community to connect them.

Follow on 𝕏: @SciGuardians

Lonni Besançon has lied and manipulated his way throughout this saga. He has resorted to vulgar, degrading insults and belittling tactics, and in his latest attempt to defend himself, he published a cropped screenshot of the message we sent him six months ago — deliberately concealing the timestamp (which we have exposed) — and then conveniently lied about it.

⚠️ It is deeply unfortunate for anyone — or any organization — to promote or elevate a manipulative, deceptive harasser in any form or manner. As always, we invite you to reflect.

Read 4 tweets

ScienceGuardians

@SciGuardians

Apr 11, 2025

Exposing the Scale of Attacks on PubPeer by Two Key Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network

The first pie chart represents the total number of topics on PubPeer as of April 1, 2025, amounting to 218,069 topics. These comments include both valid scientific discussions and harmful, coordinated attacks on researchers.

The highlighted section (18.8%) represents the attacks made by two major perpetrators within the PubPeer mob, which accounts for a staggering 18.8% of the total comments in the history of the platform—showing the scale of their malicious activity.

The second pie chart breaks down the 18.8% further, showing the involvement of four accounts operated by these two perpetrators, targeting and defaming members of the scientific community.

These figures illustrate the extent of coordinated, malicious activity within academic discourse, undermining the integrity and safety of researchers.

Note:
In an attempt to restrict access amid our ongoing investigation, and although it is too late, PubPeer has limited access to its website starting from April 2025, now only displaying 10,000 records. However, you can still access the total number of comments on the platform until that date, as shown in the image, by using the following link: web.archive.org/web/2025000000….

📌 Please Note:
We have redacted the identities of the individuals behind these attacks to prevent further dissemination of their malicious activities. At ScienceGuardians, we believe that exposing and naming such individuals only feeds their desire for attention, potentially amplifying their harmful actions. Therefore, we focus on addressing the core issues to effectively combat fraud by empowering the academic and research community, and preventing fraud before it begins. This is achieved through our comprehensive training and practical, actionable guidelines—core missions of ScienceGuardians™.

⚖️Important Note: Our Commitment to Legal Cooperation

We recognize that many of these orchestrated attacks are well-funded by certain individuals and organizations, whose identities are known to us. These attacks aim to control various high-value domains, including the stock market—such as through enforcing the retraction of papers that serve as the basis for drug development or defaming their principal investigators. These efforts also target academic positions, particularly leadership and directorship roles at national levels, such as university and research institute presidencies. Additionally, they involve research grants and funds, all of which represent billions of dollars at stake.

In light of this, we are fully prepared to collaborate with legal authorities to address these fraudulent activities. This includes working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (@FBI @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino), the Securities and Exchange Commission (@secgov), the Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept @AGPamBondi), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (@FinCENnews).

We are committed to supporting these agencies in their efforts to investigate and prosecute fraudulent activities, ensuring accountability and the protection of both the scientific and financial communities.

🔔We call on academic publishers and their research integrity teams (including but not limited to @ElsevierConnect, @WileyGlobal, @SpringerNature, @WeAreTandF, @PLOS, @APSphysics, @AIP_Publishing, @CellCellPress, @aaas, @ScienceMagazine, @Nature, @RoySocChem, @ACSPublications, @Sage_Publishing, @FrontiersIn) to avoid engaging with or supporting malicious activities rooted in platforms with zero accountability—platforms that allow orchestrated attacks and defamation against members of the academic community. Specifically, we highlight PubPeer, which has become increasingly controlled by a small group of malicious individuals and organizations with motives far beyond science and research integrity.

These individuals use PubPeer to mask their attacks by indiscriminately targeting researchers, many of whom are collateral damage in this broader, malicious network. We urge publishers to refrain from referring to or entertaining these mobs, and instead, focus on protecting the integrity of the academic community.

⚠️The piece of the puzzle we are revealing in this thread is just one of many ScienceGuardians' legal and investigative team has uncovered. We will continue to monitor the situation and any activities from all stakeholders with the goal of ensuring the betterment and thriving of the academic community.

🔱 We invite all members of the scientific, research, and academic communities to join ScienceGuardians in our mission to uphold research integrity. By registering at scienceguardians.com, you can contribute to fostering transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in academic publishing and scientific discourse.

Exposing Coordinated Attacks on the Scientific Community by Two Key Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network

This image highlights the association between two individuals responsible for orchestrating attacks on prominent researchers:

1. The perpetrator coordinating attacks on Dr. Sabine Hazan, who holds no scientific credentials and is a financial advisor, not a researcher or academic, yet he is commenting on some of the most sophisticated areas of medicine.

2. The perpetrator coordinating attacks on Professor Jörg Rinklebe from the University of Wuppertal (@Uni_Wuppertal), using the fraudulent anonymous account Desmococcus antarctica. This individual has targeted over 500 of Professor Rinklebe's published works on PubPeer, with over 100 records created in a single month alone (Read our previous post here: x.com/SciGuardians/s…).

To date, there have been hundreds of interactions between these accounts, engaging in coordinated efforts to target and defame members of the scientific community. Both accounts have repeatedly promoted and tagged PubPeer while leading their malicious efforts. These attacks often involve inflammatory language and slander, undermining the integrity of academic discourse and the safety of researchers.

Exposing the Fraudulent Accounts Operated by Perpetrator 1 Behind the Attacks on Dr. Sabine Hazan @SabinehazanMD

This image presents several key snapshots that expose the fraudulent nature of the perpetrator behind the attacks.

1. First Perpetrator’s X Account: In a shocking admission, this individual explicitly states their true nature: "Not a scientist, just a nuisance". Despite holding no scientific credentials, this person, a financial advisor, has the audacity to comment on some of the most sophisticated areas of medicine. The second snapshot from their LinkedIn profile confirms their role as a financial advisor, not a researcher or academic.

2. Interaction with Dr. Sabine Hazan: In the third snapshot, the perpetrator openly admits to using the malicious, fraudulent account Actinopolyspora biskrensis under which they have been attacking researchers on PubPeer, while also promoting their other fraudulent account, Hoya camphorifolia. The fourth snapshot further exposes their promotion of this fraudulent account, amplifying their malicious efforts.

3. Interaction with Professor Thomas J. Borody: The fifth snapshot documents an interaction where Hoya camphorifolia engages with one of Dr. Hazan’s co-authors, Professor Thomas J. Borody, telling him, "First go and complete medical school [before commenting on something which requires medical expertise]". Their response, "Medical schools are prejudiced against camphor-leaved waxy plants", is a clear reflection of their disrespect for professional training in science, as seen in their X profile. This language is aligned with their disregard for the academic and medical community.

These snapshots serve as further evidence of the fraudulent nature of these individuals, who continue to undermine scientific integrity and attack respected professionals.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

ScienceGuardians

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SciGuardians

ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!