Lone wolf
@biomanguther.bsky.social
Anti bullying. think science. Not blindly follow ai.
Pinned
Lone wolf
@biomanguther.bsky.social
· Apr 12
It appears that you seem only interested in fame. Not science.
This is @elisabethbik.bsky.social
Dr. Bik can't stand being criticized. Yet no one should block or cancel her for her work.
June 12, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Dr. Bik can't stand being criticized. Yet no one should block or cancel her for her work.
Congratulations @elisabethbik.bsky.social! Your work has resulted in directing the new science policy which cuts funds for U.S. science to half!!! You appear to be highly valued in the Trump White House.
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
Remarks by Director Kratsios at the National Academy of Sciences
Remarks by Director Kratsios at the National Academy of Sciences REINVIGORATING AMERICA’S SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY Washington, D.C.
www.whitehouse.gov
June 11, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Congratulations @elisabethbik.bsky.social! Your work has resulted in directing the new science policy which cuts funds for U.S. science to half!!! You appear to be highly valued in the Trump White House.
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
Reposted by Lone wolf
There is no clear reason that this is manipulated. The images are very low resolution. Many examples of patterning of microscopic objects. Have you not read those literature?
April 15, 2025 at 2:03 PM
There is no clear reason that this is manipulated. The images are very low resolution. Many examples of patterning of microscopic objects. Have you not read those literature?
Blocked by Bik. @elisabethbik.bsky.social
What a loser.
What a loser.
April 15, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Blocked by Bik. @elisabethbik.bsky.social
What a loser.
What a loser.
She blocks anyone who doesn’t agree with her. Shameful.
April 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
She blocks anyone who doesn’t agree with her. Shameful.
Reposted by Lone wolf
my point is that most most 90% of what Science found in their internal review process was that most of the duplicated/ manipulated images etc were copy past errors not deliberate.
I do not know about that paper u talk and i do not think it is productive to talk about single papers
I do not know about that paper u talk and i do not think it is productive to talk about single papers
April 14, 2025 at 6:20 AM
my point is that most most 90% of what Science found in their internal review process was that most of the duplicated/ manipulated images etc were copy past errors not deliberate.
I do not know about that paper u talk and i do not think it is productive to talk about single papers
I do not know about that paper u talk and i do not think it is productive to talk about single papers
Reposted by Lone wolf
Overall (in my opinion) fraud is quite quite low in science, especially among decent quality journals.
biks focus on single examples and posting them online to get famous, rather than doing e.g., a real study on the issue, is the problem in my opinion.
again i ask what % is she right about?
biks focus on single examples and posting them online to get famous, rather than doing e.g., a real study on the issue, is the problem in my opinion.
again i ask what % is she right about?
April 14, 2025 at 6:22 AM
Overall (in my opinion) fraud is quite quite low in science, especially among decent quality journals.
biks focus on single examples and posting them online to get famous, rather than doing e.g., a real study on the issue, is the problem in my opinion.
again i ask what % is she right about?
biks focus on single examples and posting them online to get famous, rather than doing e.g., a real study on the issue, is the problem in my opinion.
again i ask what % is she right about?
Reposted by Lone wolf
there are no systematic studies of how many she posts on social media really turn out to be fraud, and her refusal to do any real science about it reveals more about her than her work does about science at large. she is more interested in getting social media famous than doing real science (imo)
April 14, 2025 at 6:23 AM
there are no systematic studies of how many she posts on social media really turn out to be fraud, and her refusal to do any real science about it reveals more about her than her work does about science at large. she is more interested in getting social media famous than doing real science (imo)
Reposted by Lone wolf
I read the pubpeer discussion, the authors appear to be engaging in good faith. the first author who probably did it has been dead 12 years.
absent any hard evidence, bik posts all kinds of garbage, just look at her pubpeer history, i think it is inconclusive. certainly bik does not mean anything
absent any hard evidence, bik posts all kinds of garbage, just look at her pubpeer history, i think it is inconclusive. certainly bik does not mean anything
April 14, 2025 at 6:29 AM
I read the pubpeer discussion, the authors appear to be engaging in good faith. the first author who probably did it has been dead 12 years.
absent any hard evidence, bik posts all kinds of garbage, just look at her pubpeer history, i think it is inconclusive. certainly bik does not mean anything
absent any hard evidence, bik posts all kinds of garbage, just look at her pubpeer history, i think it is inconclusive. certainly bik does not mean anything
Reposted by Lone wolf
When i started asking Bik about why she didn't do any real studies in this area instead of just posting papers online, she went through my publications and tried to put pubpeer comments on them. had to reach out to editor to get it to stop. serial harasser who makes her money harassing
April 14, 2025 at 6:31 AM
When i started asking Bik about why she didn't do any real studies in this area instead of just posting papers online, she went through my publications and tried to put pubpeer comments on them. had to reach out to editor to get it to stop. serial harasser who makes her money harassing
Reposted by Lone wolf
you have to think about her incentives, she gets paid to find problems, that is what she is famous for. she doesnt have any ethical approval or safeguards on her conduct and the more crazy she is the more attention she gets from unknowing social media dopes
April 14, 2025 at 6:32 AM
you have to think about her incentives, she gets paid to find problems, that is what she is famous for. she doesnt have any ethical approval or safeguards on her conduct and the more crazy she is the more attention she gets from unknowing social media dopes
Reposted by Lone wolf
people need to start asking her to do real studies on the issue, not focus on this individual study or that individual study.
How does she pick her targets? was it chance that i asked her about real studies in the area and she went through my papers the next day? is it ethical and right? id say no
How does she pick her targets? was it chance that i asked her about real studies in the area and she went through my papers the next day? is it ethical and right? id say no
April 14, 2025 at 6:39 AM
people need to start asking her to do real studies on the issue, not focus on this individual study or that individual study.
How does she pick her targets? was it chance that i asked her about real studies in the area and she went through my papers the next day? is it ethical and right? id say no
How does she pick her targets? was it chance that i asked her about real studies in the area and she went through my papers the next day? is it ethical and right? id say no
Reposted by Lone wolf
i somehow started feeling like there should be some ethics review of the paper or some things like normal scientific work. but her study did not get any ethical approval or etc, nor does she work at a university actually.. somehow it is like many things piled up
April 13, 2025 at 5:11 PM
i somehow started feeling like there should be some ethics review of the paper or some things like normal scientific work. but her study did not get any ethical approval or etc, nor does she work at a university actually.. somehow it is like many things piled up
Reposted by Lone wolf
Ive been wondering about Bik's hit rate / I mean how many papers she posts online actually turn out to be fabricated, and what happens to those other e.g., 10%? then i started looking at her paper and realized she didn't count how many images there were overall. do a real read, its not good
April 13, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Ive been wondering about Bik's hit rate / I mean how many papers she posts online actually turn out to be fabricated, and what happens to those other e.g., 10%? then i started looking at her paper and realized she didn't count how many images there were overall. do a real read, its not good
Reposted by Lone wolf
We have no idea who she accepts money from.. unscrupulous labs could pay her to target competitors
shes making accusations in public without all the data.. tgats unethical for sure
most of her allegations of fraudulent images are inconsequential to the study & a lot if her complains are procedural
shes making accusations in public without all the data.. tgats unethical for sure
most of her allegations of fraudulent images are inconsequential to the study & a lot if her complains are procedural
February 1, 2025 at 9:50 AM
We have no idea who she accepts money from.. unscrupulous labs could pay her to target competitors
shes making accusations in public without all the data.. tgats unethical for sure
most of her allegations of fraudulent images are inconsequential to the study & a lot if her complains are procedural
shes making accusations in public without all the data.. tgats unethical for sure
most of her allegations of fraudulent images are inconsequential to the study & a lot if her complains are procedural
Reposted by Lone wolf
she is paid a lot of money. just because you are not doesn't mean anything.
she has the power to point her mob at people, and that needs ethical oversight, I am SURE the scientific community agrees.
she has the power to point her mob at people, and that needs ethical oversight, I am SURE the scientific community agrees.
January 30, 2025 at 8:08 AM
she is paid a lot of money. just because you are not doesn't mean anything.
she has the power to point her mob at people, and that needs ethical oversight, I am SURE the scientific community agrees.
she has the power to point her mob at people, and that needs ethical oversight, I am SURE the scientific community agrees.
Reposted by Lone wolf
in fact i could not agree more/ these are the people who want to be the science police
they do not work at universities, no ethical oversight, no random sampling, no reporting negative tests etc.
they do not work at universities, no ethical oversight, no random sampling, no reporting negative tests etc.
January 14, 2025 at 1:35 PM
in fact i could not agree more/ these are the people who want to be the science police
they do not work at universities, no ethical oversight, no random sampling, no reporting negative tests etc.
they do not work at universities, no ethical oversight, no random sampling, no reporting negative tests etc.
Reposted by Lone wolf
also for instance obvious bullying techniques. for instance this morning i woke up to find out that Bik had gone through my papers and left a series of pub peer comments on them...
hm, I wonder how she chose to examine my papers... is it some random or transparent method? I guess not! :D exciting
hm, I wonder how she chose to examine my papers... is it some random or transparent method? I guess not! :D exciting
January 14, 2025 at 1:18 PM
also for instance obvious bullying techniques. for instance this morning i woke up to find out that Bik had gone through my papers and left a series of pub peer comments on them...
hm, I wonder how she chose to examine my papers... is it some random or transparent method? I guess not! :D exciting
hm, I wonder how she chose to examine my papers... is it some random or transparent method? I guess not! :D exciting
Reposted by Lone wolf
they prefer to focus on 1 or 2 individuals and say look how big the problem is give me a job and funding, esp make me famous, rather than do like a random sample for instance and say this % overall
by now most people like above just try to score points with bik i guess by being rude
by now most people like above just try to score points with bik i guess by being rude
January 14, 2025 at 11:40 AM
they prefer to focus on 1 or 2 individuals and say look how big the problem is give me a job and funding, esp make me famous, rather than do like a random sample for instance and say this % overall
by now most people like above just try to score points with bik i guess by being rude
by now most people like above just try to score points with bik i guess by being rude
Reposted by Lone wolf
so now there is a big community saying wow 4% research is fake or etc, give us a bunch of money to look when in fact that stat is not scientific (no open data, no ethical oversight, no reproducibility) and when i started asking many people got upset as you see
January 14, 2025 at 11:38 AM
so now there is a big community saying wow 4% research is fake or etc, give us a bunch of money to look when in fact that stat is not scientific (no open data, no ethical oversight, no reproducibility) and when i started asking many people got upset as you see
Reposted by Lone wolf
several people now have been fired, and these wannabe science police use such data as Biks to argue they need much more money.
but they are not doing it in scientific ways i.e., they only report positive tests not negative tests.
we found the actual number much smaller ~.1%
but they are not doing it in scientific ways i.e., they only report positive tests not negative tests.
we found the actual number much smaller ~.1%
January 14, 2025 at 11:37 AM
several people now have been fired, and these wannabe science police use such data as Biks to argue they need much more money.
but they are not doing it in scientific ways i.e., they only report positive tests not negative tests.
we found the actual number much smaller ~.1%
but they are not doing it in scientific ways i.e., they only report positive tests not negative tests.
we found the actual number much smaller ~.1%
Reposted by Lone wolf
Hi, can you change the reference to this paper? It is currently on its way to being retracted for the gross statistical and general science practice errors it makes.
please note it is not published as an empirical piece, rather a perspective. no open data, no ethical approval, it is overestimate
please note it is not published as an empirical piece, rather a perspective. no open data, no ethical approval, it is overestimate
February 14, 2025 at 10:35 AM
Hi, can you change the reference to this paper? It is currently on its way to being retracted for the gross statistical and general science practice errors it makes.
please note it is not published as an empirical piece, rather a perspective. no open data, no ethical approval, it is overestimate
please note it is not published as an empirical piece, rather a perspective. no open data, no ethical approval, it is overestimate
Reposted by Lone wolf
Ok. Even if that is the case and someone does something wrong should everyone on a paper be punished even if the rest of it and its conclusions are accurate? I don’t recall dr Bik being punished for being part of a scam at ubiome. She can separate that for herself but not others.
April 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Ok. Even if that is the case and someone does something wrong should everyone on a paper be punished even if the rest of it and its conclusions are accurate? I don’t recall dr Bik being punished for being part of a scam at ubiome. She can separate that for herself but not others.
Reposted by Lone wolf
Backlit cat looking up. Happy Caturday 😊.
April 12, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Backlit cat looking up. Happy Caturday 😊.
Reposted by Lone wolf
