When A Smearing Network Hides Behind ‘Research Integrity’ Banner
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 percent 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. (a lot of these images are very similar, see the source document to view them – Ed)
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.
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.
(a lot of these images are very similar, see the source document to view them – Ed)
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 percent 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.
When the expert posted a second comment protesting this unjustified censorship, it too was immediately removed and fully CENSORED.
(a lot of these images are very similar, see the source document to view them – Ed)
Editor’s note: there follows another 13 cases, see the source document.
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.
See more here substack.com
Header image: The Conversation