🚨SCIENCE INTEGRITY SCANDAL: Exposing a sophisticated smearing network hidden behind the banner of “research integrity”
Elisabeth Bik — a self-branded integrity consultant caught rigging the game to protect herself and her network
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An independent scientific consortium—commissioned by ScienceGuardians™—conducted a systematic, post-publication investigation into the published work of the figure known publicly as Elisabeth Bik. The inquiry was initiated after growing concerns that a coordinated smear-and-defamation network had co-opted the language of “research integrity” to intimidate scientists, distort academic narratives, and manipulate the perception of scientific misconduct.
Between 19 November 2024 and 30 January 2025, independent experts reviewed seventeen papers co-authored by the figure in question.
Every single one of these papers contained severe, in several cases fatal, scientific or ethical flaws—structural deficiencies that in a normal scholarly environment would warrant, at minimum, an Expression of Concern, and in many cases, outright retraction.
But something far more disturbing emerged:
Every one of the expert critiques—documented objectively, backed with evidence, and submitted through standard post-publication channels—was censored on PubPeer.
Not “some.”
Not “most.”
All. Seventeen. Without exception.
This pattern forms the backbone of what is presented in this disclosure:
not merely scientific failure, but systematic suppression of valid criticism targeting the inner circle of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob.
HOW THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED
The investigation was carried out through a structured, multi-phase methodology:
Phase 1 — Paper Identification & Independent Expert Review
ScienceGuardians™ commissioned a group of highly respected, independent scientists — none of whom had any prior involvement with the individuals investigated — to review all publicly available papers co-authored by Elisabeth Bik. Their task was straightforward:
evaluate the work objectively,
identify any fatal scientific or ethical flaws if present,
prepare a formal post-publication critique suitable for PubPeer.
Phase 2 — Documentation and Submission
All critiques were submitted to PubPeer between 19 November 2024 and 30 January 2025.
Each submission was time-stamped, archived, and screen-recorded.
Phase 3 — Monitoring Outcome
Experts monitored whether their comments:
posted publicly,
were silently “held,”
were altered or rewritten,
or were removed entirely.
The pattern was clearer and more consistent than expected.
THE PUBPEER CENSORSHIP PATTERN EXPLAINED
Across all seventeen submissions, the outcome was identical — censorship — though the mechanisms differed case by case. The following suppression patterns were observed:
1. Immediate Acceptance — but Hidden
Some submissions were marked “ACCEPTED,” yet never appeared publicly.
They were visible only to the logged-in commenter.
2. Selective Editing by Moderators
In some cases, PubPeer moderators modified expert critiques by:
removing key criticisms,
softening scientific assessments,
deleting any mention of retraction-level flaws.
3. Sudden Disappearance
Several accepted-but-hidden comments were later erased without explanation, despite full compliance with PubPeer’s own stated rules.
4. One Outlier — and What Happened to It
One comment (Case 3) briefly became public on 23 November 2024.
Exactly 10 days later, on 3 December 2024, it was removed.
5. A Perfect Correlation
100% of critiques targeting papers authored by the public face of the mob network and her collaborators were censored.
This pattern is portrayed as a defining mechanism of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob—protecting its inner circle while manufacturing thousands of weaponized accusations against researchers across the world.
CASE 1 — PLOS ONE (2017)
“16S rRNA gene sequencing and healthy reference ranges for 28 clinically relevant microbial taxa from the human gut microbiome”
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176555 | PubMed: 28467461
Summary of Findings
This study is presented as fundamentally unreliable:
A possibly non-human sample was never investigated.
All “health” metadata were self-reported, with no clinical verification.
Subjects ranged from 19 days to 103 years, yet were pooled as a single “healthy population.”
The collapse of uBiome eliminated raw data permanently — verification is now impossible.
These failings meet common criteria for retraction-level scientific unreliability.
Expert Submission (19 November 2024)
The full critique submitted to PubPeer included:
fatal concerns regarding data integrity
misrepresentation of “healthy” reference ranges
lack of age stratification
inability to reproduce results
insufficient statistical justification
questionable ethical oversight for infant sampling
and invalid claims of clinical utility
A screenshot of the full submission was preserved.
Censorship Record
20 November 2024 — Marked “ACCEPTED,” but never published.
Visible only when logged in.25 January 2025 — CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
📌 Important Note
A Correction was issued by the authors of this paper in February 2019. However, numerous fatal flaws were flagged by a PubPeer user later that same year — before Elisabeth Bik became formally aligned with the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob.
Those flaws remained unaddressed until October 2022, when the journal issued an Expression of Concern—ironically posted by Bik herself on PubPeer.
CASE 2 — Journal of Medical Case Reports (2019)
“The role of a sequencing-based clinical intestinal screening test in patients at high-risk for Clostridium difficile and other pathogens: a case report”
doi: 10.1186/s13256-018-1919-1 | PubMed: 30642394
Summary of Findings
This case report is critically compromised: every author was employed by or financially connected to uBiome, the company selling the SmartGut™ test being presented as a clinical tool — a direct, undisclosed commercial conflict that fundamentally invalidates the neutrality of the work. A single medically vulnerable patient is used to make broad clinical recommendations; the sequencing-based test lacks independent verification; no raw data are available; and the paper extrapolates sweeping claims from anecdotal evidence. Every major conclusion is speculative, promotional, and unsupported by scientific rigor — meeting clear criteria for RETRACTION.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 25 January 2025, but the critique was never published and was CENSORED the very same day.
Screenshots document each step.
The critique was never published and was CENSORED entirely.
CASE 3 — Frontiers in Microbiology (2019)
“Reduced Gut Microbiome Diversity and Metabolome Differences in Rhinoceros Species at Risk for Iron Overload Disorder”
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02291 | PubMed: 31649637
Summary of Findings
This study suffers from major scientific weaknesses: extremely small and imbalanced sample sizes, severe facility and diet confounding, substantially reduced taxonomic resolution in key species, single-time-point sampling, relaxed statistical thresholds that inflate false-positive findings, and speculative mechanistic interpretations far beyond what the correlative data can support. Methodological limitations and low statistical power further undermine reproducibility. These flaws collectively meet standard criteria for an EXPRESSION OF CONCERN.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 23 November 2024, and the comment was ACCEPTED and PUBLISHED publicly the same day.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was ACCEPTED and PUBLISHED publicly.
However, after remaining publicly visible for exactly 10 days, it was removed and CENSORED on 3 December 2024.
CASE 4 — PNAS (2007)
“Dissecting biological ‘dark matter’ with single-cell genetic analysis of rare and uncultivated TM7 microbes from the human mouth”
doi: 10.1073/pnas.070466210 | PubMed: 17620602
Summary of Findings
This paper’s core genomic claims collapse under their own admitted limitations: the TM7 single-cell dataset was contaminated (~10% Leptotrichia), the assemblies were severely fragmented and biased, genome size could not be reliably estimated, and the sampling strategy itself was morphologically pre-selected and non-representative. Despite acknowledging these failures, the authors drew sweeping evolutionary and metabolic conclusions — rendering the study scientifically unreliable and meeting standard criteria for EXPRESSION OF CONCERN.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025, and the comment was ACCEPTED and PUBLISHED the next day, 30 January 2025. However, the moderator subsequently removed the major concerns, substantially altering the content.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was ACCEPTED and PUBLISHED, but the content was substantially altered.
When the expert posted a second comment protesting this unjustified censorship, it too was immediately removed and fully CENSORED.
CASE 5 — Current Biology (2017)
“Novel Microbial Diversity and Functional Potential in the Marine Mammal Oral Microbiome”
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.040 | PubMed: 29153320
Summary of Findings
This study raises major ethical, methodological, and transparency concerns. The paper provides insufficient detail on animal-welfare oversight for sampling marine mammals, leaving unclear whether proper ethical safeguards, regulatory approvals, and species-specific handling considerations were fully met. Reproducibility is also compromised: raw sequencing data, assemblies, and essential metadata are not clearly accessible, obstructing independent validation. More serious still, the study contains undisclosed conflict-of-interest risks: one author was affiliated with uBiome, a company later embroiled in data-integrity and regulatory scandals. The potential influence of this connection on study design, data interpretation, and reported outcomes is not acknowledged or discussed. These omissions raise legitimate concerns about transparency, bias, and the reliability of the conclusions.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 19 November 2024.
The comment was marked “ACCEPTED” on 22 November 2024 — but was never published, remaining visible only when logged in.
On 25 January 2025, the comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was marked “ACCEPTED” but was never published publicly.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 6 — British Journal of Pharmacology (2018)
“Microbial biotransformations in the human distal gut”
doi: 10.1111/bph.14085 | PubMed: 29116650
Summary of Findings
This article contains serious integrity vulnerabilities: every listed author was an employee of uBiome — a company later investigated for scientific and financial misconduct — and the study’s conclusions directly align with uBiome’s commercial agenda. Despite declaring stock options and financial incentives, the authors fail to explain how these conflicts were mitigated or how bias was controlled during study design, interpretation, or citation selection. No independent validation, external replication, or raw mechanistic data are provided to support the broad claims made about microbial drug metabolism. The framing and selective referencing strongly suggest corporate-driven narrative shaping rather than unbiased scientific inquiry.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 19 November 2024, and the comment was marked “ACCEPTED” on 22 November 2024 — but never published publicly, remaining visible only to the logged-in commenter.
On 25 January 2025, the critique was CENSORED and removed entirely, without explanation.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was marked “ACCEPTED” but was never published publicly.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 7 — Environmental Microbiology (2023)
“Rookery through rehabilitation: Microbial community assembly in newborn harbour seals after maternal separation”
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.16444 | PubMed: 37329141
Summary of Findings
This study contains substantial ethical and methodological concerns. Critical details on wild-animal handling are missing: the use of hoop nets and physical restraint in newborn harbour seals is described without adequate discussion of welfare impact, risk mitigation, or independent oversight. The ethical justification for disturbing wild neonates—an especially vulnerable group—is insufficiently articulated. Rehabilitation protocols introduce further issues. Prophylactic antibiotic administration was not randomized, creating confounding that undermines any conclusions about microbiome assembly. The absence of proper experimental controls raises concerns about internal validity, while incomplete reporting on sampling conditions, stress responses, and decision criteria limits reproducibility.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on 19 November 2024, and the comment was marked “ACCEPTED” on 22 November 2024 — but never published, visible ONLY when logged in.
On 25 January 2025, the comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was marked “ACCEPTED” but was never published publicly.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 8 — Science (2005)
“Diversity of the Human Intestinal Microbial Flora”
📌 Note: PubPeer displays only the first author for this paper — likely a display error.
Full Author List: Paul B. Eckburg, Elisabeth M. Bik, Charles N. Bernstein, Elizabeth Purdom, Les Dethlefsen, Michael Sargent, Steven R. Gill, Karen E. Nelson, and David A. Relman
doi: 10.1126/science.1110591 | PubMed: 15831718
Summary of Findings
This study suffers from notable transparency and reporting deficiencies: the statistical methods are insufficiently described, potential selective reporting cannot be ruled out, and the absence of p-values or confidence intervals prevents any meaningful assessment of the robustness of the reported results.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 24 November 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 25 November 2025 it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 9 — PLOS Biology (2007)
“Development of the Human Infant Intestinal Microbiota”
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050177 | PubMed: 17594176
Summary of Findings
This study contains unresolved methodological problems that undermine the reliability of its conclusions. A central issue — first raised in 2014 — remains unaddressed: the authors never compared their microarray results with sequencing data at lower taxonomic levels (genus/species), despite the microarray’s known limitations at these levels. The method is also documented to underestimate key taxa such as Bifidobacteria due to primer mismatches, yet this flaw is neither corrected nor acknowledged in the analysis. These omissions risk producing misleading interpretations of infant gut composition and could have serious downstream implications if relied upon in clinical contexts.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 24 January 2025. The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 25 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
📌 Important Note
The fatal flaws in this paper were first flagged by a PubPeer user in 2014 — before Elisabeth Bik became formally aligned with the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob. The expert’s 2025 reiteration of those concerns, along with additional severe methodological and interpretative issues, was fully CENSORED and removed, as documented in the screenshots that follow.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 10 — PNAS (2006)
“Molecular analysis of the bacterial microbiota in the human stomach”
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506655103 | PubMed: 16407106
Summary of Findings
This study presents notable insights into gastric microbial composition, but several methodological and reporting weaknesses undermine the reliability of its conclusions. The authors briefly acknowledge the possibility of Helicobacter pylori DNA contamination in samples from subjects who repeatedly tested negative by conventional diagnostics — yet they offer no meaningful analysis of how such contamination may have impacted results. Likewise, the manuscript concedes that some detected bacterial DNA may represent transient or residual organisms rather than true colonizers, but this critical possibility is never rigorously explored, raising concerns about the validity of downstream interpretations. Additional concerns include selective reporting of findings and the absence of deeper follow-up on statistical anomalies — such as unexplained variability in H. pylori detection — which together create the appearance that certain results may have been framed to fit the study’s hypothesis rather than presented with full transparency. These shortcomings materially limit confidence in the study’s conclusions, particularly for any clinical or translational application.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 24 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 25 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 11 — Environmental Microbiology (2023)
“Rookery through rehabilitation: Microbial community assembly in newborn harbour seals after maternal separation”
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.16444 | PubMed: 37329141
Summary of Findings
This study’s conclusions are undermined by serious methodological and interpretive shortcomings: the unexpected increase in gingival microbiota diversity following antibiotic treatment contradicts well-established patterns in other species, yet the study provides no randomized control over antibiotic administration. Key confounding variables — including age at treatment, seal health status, and microbial sharing during co-housing — remain uncontrolled, making causal inference unreliable. The absence of a rigorous assessment of potential bacterial transfer from human handlers or shared environmental surfaces further weakens the evidence base. Despite author assertions, indirect transfer routes were never evaluated, and assumptions about handler influence remain unverified. These gaps, coupled with unexplained variability in microbial diversity, severely undermine the credibility of the study’s claims regarding microbial assembly in rehabilitated seals.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 25 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on the same day, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 12 — Phase (2020)
“Methods for Extraction and Detection of Pf Bacteriophage DNA from the Sputum of Patients with Cystic Fibrosis”
doi: 10.1089/phage.2020.0003 | PubMed: 32626852
Summary of Findings
This study is critically undermined by substantial methodological weaknesses: the core detection method (PCR) performs poorly, with Pf phage DNA detected 1–2 logs below expected levels, indicating major DNA loss during extraction. No independent validation methods are used, sequencing is absent, plaque assays are missing, and phage quantification rests entirely on unverified PCR data. Two extraction protocols are compared without sufficient justification or analysis, and the mechanical method appears to introduce significant detection bias. Sample sizes are extremely small, limiting generalizability, and conflict-of-interest disclosures lack necessary transparency. Taken together, these failures severely compromise reliability, reproducibility, and objectivity of the study.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 25 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on the same day, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
📌 In this case, the censorship was stealth: the expert’s comment disappeared entirely, including from logged-in view. At the same time, two back-dated comments from May 2021 were displayed publicly, with one shown as having been moderated and removed. Even more strangely, that very same comment — which explicitly praised the work by Bik and co-authors — was later restored.
This manipulation sequence demonstrates an unusually aggressive protective pattern toward Elisabeth Bik.
Screenshots document each step.
The expert’s comment disappeared entirely, including from logged-in view. At the same time, two back-dated comments from May 2021 (#2 and #3) were displayed publicly, with one (#2) shown as having been moderated and removed.
The very same comment (#2) — which explicitly praised the work by Elisabeth Bik and co-authors — was later restored.
CASE 13 — Nutrition Reviews (2009)
“Composition and function of the human-associated microbiota”
doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00237.x | PubMed: 19906220
Summary of Findings
This paper contains a clear ethical lapse: a mice figure reused from a public-domain Wikipedia source was included without any attribution. Even when content is in the public domain, academic integrity requires proper attribution — failure to credit the original source is a violation of ethical publishing standards and misrepresents the figure as original. Worse, Elisabeth Bik attempted to normalize the misconduct, claiming no wrongdoing had occurred. Downplaying or justifying an omission of attribution sets a dangerous precedent and undermines trust in the scientific record. Proper citation and acknowledgment are non-negotiable. Their absence here constitutes a significant ethical concern.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 30 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
📌 Important Note
A PubPeer user had successfully raised serious ethical concerns with this paper in June 2021, which appears to have slipped through moderation (similar to Case 3). These concerns included:
Striking similarity between the 2008 Dutch paper and the 2009 English paper by the same sole author, Elisabeth Bik.
The English paper does not cite the earlier Dutch paper.
2 out of 3 figures (English) and 2 out of 4 figures (Dutch) are similar.
Figure 1 in the Dutch paper appears non-original and lacked source attribution.
Relevant references:
English paper:
Composition and function of the human-associated microbiota — Nutrition Reviews (2009)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00237.xDutch paper:
The microbiotics of the human body — Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd (2008)
PubMed: 18438061
Coordinated Attack By PubPeer “PubSmear” Mob Members
Bik, echoed by several already-exposed members of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob — including:
David Bimler (fraudulent alias Hoya camphorifolia)
Kevin Patrick (fraudulent alias Actinopolyspora biskrensis)
along with other fake aliases,
collectively attacked the commenter, denying all concerns and insisting everything was “normal.”
Their coordinated defense, despite obvious ethical violations, is consistent with the broader mob pattern documented throughout this investigation.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 14 — British Journal of Pharmacology (2018)
“Microbial biotransformations in the human distal gut”
doi: 10.1111/bph.14085 | PubMed: 29116650
Summary of Findings
This review suffers from major conflict-of-interest concerns: every author was employed by uBiome, a company with direct commercial interests in microbiome testing, yet the paper does not adequately address how these conflicts were mitigated. The review presents microbial biotransformations as a stable, well-understood field, while downplaying the substantial uncertainties, variability, and reproducibility problems that existed in 2018. Its portrayal of microbiome-based drug metabolism significantly oversimplifies complex mechanisms, overlooks inter-individual variability, minimizes ongoing scientific controversy, and risks misleading readers. Given the authors’ financial incentives and the lack of critical balance, the review raises serious concerns about objectivity and impartiality.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 30 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 15 — PLOS ONE (2022)
Do individual and institutional predictors of misconduct vary by country? Results of a matched-control analysis of problematic image duplications
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255334 | PubMed: 35235555
Summary of Findings
This study’s conclusions are seriously compromised by multiple biases and methodological flaws that undermine its credibility. A clear conflict of interest exists through Elisabeth Bik’s affiliation with Harbers Bik LLC, a commercial entity that financially benefits from investigating scientific misconduct. This calls into question the neutrality of the analysis and interpretation.
Beyond COI, the study suffers from fundamental design limitations:
Selection bias — restricted to biomedical papers from a single journal (PLOS ONE), severely limiting generalizability.
Uncontrolled confounding — institutional pressures, academic rank, and collaboration types are ignored, distorting any predictors of misconduct.
Confirmation bias — the authors disproportionately emphasize countries with cash-incentive systems (China, South Korea), while failing to adequately evaluate comparable pressures in Western systems.
Narrow definition of misconduct — image duplication is treated as the sole indicator, excluding other forms such as data falsification, plagiarism, or citation manipulation.
Finally, the PLOS ONE handling editor failed to address these clear vulnerabilities or require adequate mitigation, allowing a flawed analysis to be published without sufficient scrutiny. These issues significantly erode confidence in the study’s conclusions.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 30 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 16 — Science and Engineering Ethics (2019)
“Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications”
doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7 | PubMed: 29460082
Summary of Findings
This study’s conclusions are seriously compromised by multiple significant biases and methodological flaws. The conflict of interest arising from Elisabeth Bik’s affiliation with Harbers Bik LLC — a company that investigates scientific misconduct — raises severe concerns about impartiality, particularly given the direct financial interest in promoting findings related to misconduct. Selection bias is substantial: the analysis focuses exclusively on papers from a single journal (PLoS ONE), limiting generalizability. Critical confounding variables such as institutional pressures, academic rank, and cultural differences in scientific practices are not sufficiently accounted for, skewing the interpretation of misconduct predictors. The classification of image duplications into categories (1, 2, and 3) introduces subjective judgment, creating significant classification bias. The inconsistent patterns observed across categories — especially the weakest subgroup (category 3) — are not supported by adequate statistical power, yet are used to draw broad conclusions. Overemphasis on country-level associations (e.g., “cash incentive” systems) oversimplifies complex, multifactorial causes of misconduct, while the study relies heavily on self-referential citations, reinforcing its own hypotheses and marginalizing alternative explanations. Collectively, these flaws severely undermine the reliability of the results.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 30 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
CASE 17 — PLOS ONE (2019)
A novel sequencing-based vaginal health assay combining self-sampling, HPV detection and genotyping, STI detection, and vaginal microbiome analysis
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215945 | PubMed: 31042762
Summary of Findings
This study contains severe scientific and ethical concerns: the SmartJane assay lacked proper clinical validation, relying on only a small cohort of 50 self-reported “healthy” women, introducing selection bias. The sole published clinical study showed no benefit, yet the paper promoted the test’s novelty and commercial potential without supporting evidence. A major ethical issue was identified with the IRB approval: the identical approval number was used for different studies across multiple years (2017–2019), despite distinct protocols. This irregularity raises serious questions about whether separate ethical approvals were ever obtained. The study also carries clear commercial conflicts of interest, given the authors’ affiliation with uBiome, whose founders — Jessica Richman and Zachary S. Apte (the latter listed as the corresponding author) — have since been criminally indicted for fraud and are fugitives from U.S. authorities. These issues collectively undermine the scientific and ethical integrity of the work and meet clear criteria for RETRACTION.
Censorship Record
An expert flagged these issues on PubPeer on 29 January 2025.
The comment was never made publicly visible, and on 30 January 2025, it was CENSORED and removed entirely.
📌 Important Note
A PubPeer user had already raised serious concerns with this paper in 2019, before Bik was recruited by the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob:
“The uBiome company’s SmartJane test claims to… assess vaginal health using sequencing, machine learning, AI, and proprietary algorithms…
I located only one study — this PLOS ONE paper — and it did not demonstrate any clinical benefits. Normal reference ranges were based on just 50 self-reported healthy women — hardly a reliable validation.”
(Source: sciencebasedmedicine.org)
Another user flagged the IRB irregularities in 2023, which appears to have slipped through moderation (similar to Case 3). These concerns included:
“The same IRB approval number (13044, 05/10/2013) is cited for different studies in 2017 and 2019, despite different sample protocols. Was a single IRB approval used for multiple distinct studies? Could the authors provide the original approval document?”
Screenshots document each step.
The comment was CENSORED and removed entirely.
No critiques can be published on PubPeer against the papers authored by the perpetrators of the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob.
WHY?
Because their central tactic is to falsely equate the number of PubPeer, or as the academic community calls it, “PubSmear,” entries with the number of fraudulent papers — the very foundation upon which their harassment, smearing, and defamation campaigns stand. A deliberate distortion designed to mislead the academic community, media, and institutions.
And that simply can’t happen to them.
If even a single critique on their own work stood, the entire façade of deception, fraud, and manipulation would collapse.
Years of deception.
Layers of fraud.
Now exposed.
idiots will do anything for money or power at the expense of others
this deception all needs to stop. bring the truth in the light
So who is paying for PubSmear? Follow the money?