On July 11, 2025, the journal Nature finds itself at the heart of an unprecedented crisis, accused of editorial bias and information pollution by ScienceGuardians\u00a0TM<\/sup>\u00a0(@SciGuardians) following a\u00a0propagandistic article and therefore unworthy of a journal like Nature, an article by Miryam Nadaff published on July 9, 2025.<\/a>\u00a0By unreservedly supporting\u00a0self-proclaimed detectives of scientific integrity like Elisabeth Bik<\/strong>\u00a0, while ignoring their errors and controversies, Nature endorses information bias and\u00a0places itself in direct opposition to the principles of the American decree<\/strong>\u00a0\u201c\u00a0Restore the Gold Standard in Science<\/a>\u00a0\u201c (May 20, 2025). France-Soir’s investigations, the work of Charles Vidal and Didier Raoult, the revelations of Science Guardians\u00a0TM<\/sup>, and criticism from epidemiologists like Nicolas Hulscher expose \u201charassment\u201d networks involving, among others, Bik and PubPeer, potentially fueled by the financial interests of Springer Nature. This article analyzes these abuses, explores the legal implications, and calls for urgent reform to restore trust in science.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The article by Miryam Nadaff, associate editor at Nature,\u00a0celebrates scientific integrity detectives<\/strong>\u00a0, notably Elisabeth Bik, for their role in detecting fraud, such as the retraction of Lesn\u00e9 et al.’s article on Alzheimer’s (Nature, 2006). Several authors of the publications in Nature Springer presented Didier Raoult’s criticisms, accusing Bik of \u201cblackmail\u201d and \u201charassment,\u201d as defensive reactions, without analyzing them in depth. This suggests blatant editorial bias that is not consistent with scientific ethics, one of the reasons for the DOJ investigations targeting certain publications.<\/p>\n By giving unconditional support to Bik and his cronies,\u00a0Nadaff omits major controversies<\/strong>\u00a0:<\/p>\n Nature’s Vaccine Bias<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0: A major bias concerns vaccination. A library of more\u00a0than 700 peer-reviewed studies questioning mRNA vaccines against Covid-19<\/a>, highlights risks such as myocarditis, thrombosis, and long-term effects.\u00a0 Editorial implications<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0: By ignoring Bik’s mistakes, his past, and criticism of vaccination,\u00a0Nadaff adopts a biased stance\u00a0aligned with the interests of SpringerNature<\/strong>\u00a0, Nature’s parent company. This approach runs counter to journalistic standards of balance and transparency, suggesting that Nature\u00a0prioritizes\u00a0an institutional narrative over scientific rigor<\/strong>\u00a0.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In November 2024,\u00a0the Einstein Foundation<\/a>\u00a0awarded\u00a0its annual prize<\/a>\u00a0to Elisabeth Bik ($200,000) for her work in image detection, to PubPeer ($200,000) for its post-publication review platform, and to PixelQuality ($100,000) for its image analysis tools. This prize, sponsored in part by Nature Portfolio, a subsidiary of Springer Nature, is intended to recognize contributions to scientific integrity.<\/p>\n Criticism and suspicions are flying. Starting with the\u00a0choice of winners<\/strong>\u00a0:<\/p>\n Impact on credibility<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0: This award, intended to celebrate integrity, appears more like a tool of thanks for good and loyal service in\u00a0the context of an operation to whitewash erroneous information<\/strong>, by validating controversial actors without examining the criticisms. This legitimization by an institution linked to Nature reinforces the questions of information pollution, where\u00a0dubious reports are amplified to discredit researchers like Professor Didier Raoult<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Information pollution refers to\u00a0the dissemination of biased, incomplete, or erroneous information to influence public opinion<\/strong>. Misinformation laundering occurs when prestigious institutions, such as Nature, legitimize this information by giving it scientific authority.\u00a0<\/p>\n Nadaff’s article\u00a0illustrates these phenomena<\/strong>\u00a0by amplifying Bik’s reports without acknowledging their flaws, while simultaneously ignoring critical studies on vaccination or health containment policies.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In a multi-year investigation,\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0describes the \u201charcelosphere\u201d as a network involving Bik, doctors (Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, Damien Barraud), and activists (Sonic_urticant, Fabrice Frank), targeting the IHU M\u00e9diterran\u00e9e Infection, Raoult, and\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0via\u00a0PubPeer<\/em>\u00a0and social networks (\u00a0September 23, 2021<\/a>\u00a0,\u00a0September 13, 2022<\/a>,\u00a0November 17, 2023<\/a>\u00a0). An infiltration by \u201cKim Philby\u201d (@AgainstRaoult), supported by the\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0Citizen Collective, revealed a \u00a0\u00bb\u00a0modus operandi<\/em>\u00a0\u201c to attack Raoult and his collaborators, including documents exchanged by Sonic_urticant which, noted by a bailiff, were handed over to the courts.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Science Guardians, in posts on X (here<\/a>,\u00a0and here<\/a>),\u00a0accuses PubPeer<\/a>\u00a0of serving as a platform where \u201cfraud detectives<\/em>\u00a0\u201c like Bik\u00a0violate scientific ethics to harass researchers under the guise of integrity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If networks like X or Telegram are investigated for cyberbullying, PubPeer could also be targeted by judicial investigations, given the incriminating evidence presented by Science Guardians.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ScienceGuardians\u00a0TM<\/sup>\u00a0claims that publishers like Nature Springer, via Nadaff and the Einstein Prize,\u00a0would complete the cycle of laundering false information.<\/strong>\u00a0This is also the mechanism observed by\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0in its investigations on the harcelopsh\u00e8re (\u00a0Panorama of a scam<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Autopsy of a column on the crisis<\/a>), where harassment and the cycle of laundering allows\u00a0biased reports against the IHU to be legitimized<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The \u201cTrend Fabrication<\/a>,\u201d an article published in France-Soir, analyzes how media outlets and magazines orchestrate narratives to serve financial interests, raising the possibility of\u00a0insider trading,<\/a>\u00a0where biased information is disseminated to influence regulators and politicians. This would, among other things, allow for a violation of free and informed consent and billions of dollars for the instigators.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0played a key role in exposing the \u201charassment sphere<\/em>,\u201d with detailed investigations demonstrating coordination against the IHU and Raoult (her<\/a>e,\u00a0and here<\/a>). These articles analyze the manipulations surrounding Covid-19 (diagnoses, treatments, vaccines), revealing\u00a0systemic biases in scientific publications in favor of vaccines and against early treatments<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0Citizen Collective\u00a0supported the infiltration by \u201cKim Philby,\u201d proving the existence of an organized network. The article in \u201cTrue Lies and False Truths<\/em><\/a>\u201c denounces modern standards of propaganda, where journals like Nature disseminate biased narratives to serve financial or ideological interests. It illustrates that the truth, constructed through \u201clabor and real observations<\/em>,\u201d progresses slowly, while the lie, financed by \u201cdollars,\u201d takes the elevator. The second half of 2025 could reveal the truth about these excesses, validating the efforts of\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0since 2020 and the recent in-depth investigations of ScienceGuardians\u00a0TM<\/sup>.<\/p>\n France-Soir’s investigations demonstrate\u00a0a rigor in the analysis of scientific and media biases<\/strong>\u00a0, which explains the desire of these detectives and harassers to label France-Soir and make it invisible in order to turn readers away. Being right too soon can be \u201charmful,\u201d but persistence and consistency, while respecting journalistic ethics, could change the situation.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Signed on May 20, 2025<\/a>, the decree, led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya,\u00a0requires\u00a0transparency of raw data<\/strong>\u00a0,\u00a0open scientific debates<\/strong>\u00a0and the elimination of conflicts of interest<\/a>.<\/p>\n Also, recently, there has been much criticism of the epidemiological models used to justify health measures in 2020.\u00a0Wood’s<\/a>\u00a0study analyzes Covid-19 epidemiological models, published in journals such as Nature,\u00a0which overestimated risks<\/strong>\u00a0(mortality, hospitalizations) due to non-transparent data and statistical bias. Statistician Sander Greenland criticizes these \u201cmathematical arrangements<\/em>,\u201d pointing to unvalidated assumptions (for example, on the lethality of the virus). These models\u00a0justified containment policies<\/strong>\u00a0,\u00a0causing economic and social damage, without solid evidence of their effectiveness<\/strong>\u00a0. Nature never addressed these flaws, contradicting the decree’s call for transparency.<\/p>\n Nature ignores\u00a0the\u00a0700 peer-reviewed studies on the dangers of mRNA vaccines. Nicolas Hulscher denounces this censorship, arguing for an urgent need for open debate. These omissions contradict the decree’s objectives and reinforce accusations of information pollution.<\/a><\/p>\n In\u00a0an interview<\/a>, Professor Didier Raoult\u00a0denounces the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and publishers like Nature<\/strong>\u00a0, accused of compromising scientific integrity. He points out that funding (exceeding the French military budget)\u00a0promotes biased science<\/strong>, and welcomes Bhattacharya’s reforms to restore meritocracy. Raoult criticizes the \u201cscience war<\/em>\u201c fueled by actors like Bik, aligning his speech with the objectives of the decree.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The DOJ\u00a0is investigating scientific journals<\/a>\u00a0for potential biases leading to fraud, including peer review manipulation and \u00ab\u00a0paper mills<\/em>.\u201d A Nature study estimates 70,000 fraudulent articles will be published in 2022, but Nadaff omits these investigations.<\/p>\n With these factors in mind, the Trump administration\u00a0canceled\u00a0contracts<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0with Springer Nature<\/strong>\u00a0for\u00a0bias and junk science<\/a>\u00a0. This decision, aligned with the executive order, suggests that a thorough investigation into certain publishers may well extend to Springer Nature publications.<\/p>\n Springer Nature<\/a>\u00a0expects\u00a0its revenue to increase<\/a>\u00a0by 5% in 2025 to \u20ac1.89-1.94 million, with an adjusted profit of \u20ac512 million, and predicts an increase in 2025 thanks to Open Access. The scientific publishing industry is almost as profitable as the IT industry with 27% profit! Shareholders include BC Partners (majority since 2013) and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group (merger in 2015), with an IPO in October 2024 strengthening its funds (\u00a0Annual Report 2024<\/a>\u00a0). These financial ties, combined with contracts with the NIH and pharmaceutical companies, raise suspicions of conflicts of interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n France-Soir<\/em><\/a>\u00a0analyzes\u00a0insider trading<\/a>\u00a0where publishers like Springer Nature could\u00a0orchestrate biased narratives<\/strong>\u00a0by selecting certain studies over others (vaccines, integrity) to influence regulators and politicians,\u00a0favoring profits at the expense of ethics<\/strong>\u00a0. A review by the NIH, the DOJ, and the French authorities is urgent, especially to protect researchers like those at the IHU and especially the interests of patients.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In France, the Couperin agreements award \u20ac33 million to Elsevier and several million over three years to\u00a0Springer Nature<\/a>. These agreements were justified by the idea that joint purchasing would reduce the cost per article. However, since the allocated publication quotas are not fully used, the effective cost per publication amounts to \u20ac7,000 per article for Elsevier, which benefits only the publisher, while taxpayers once again bear the loss.<\/p>\n The Ministry of Research is reportedly conducting an audit to examine Elsevier’s unused rights and complaints against journals like Nature for harassment of French researchers, particularly at the IHU. A review of scientific publishing is necessary to prevent science from being captured by private interests.\u00a0<\/p>\n In 2018, the CNRS broke off\u00a0agreements with Springer Nature<\/a>\u00a0on the grounds that they were too expensive.\u00a0In 2025-2026, will we see the Ministry of Research take into consideration the pernicious role of publishers,<\/strong>\u00a0reinforcing suspicions of editorial bias and the instrumentalization of publications against the interests of patients?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Nature’s excesses can be compared to what happened during the subprime crisis (2007-2008), when rating agencies encouraged savers to buy risky products.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the context described by\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>, and in the revelations of ScienceGuardianTM<\/sup>\u00a0,\u00a0scientific publishers (including Nature) and the media<\/a>, are shown as having contributed to the laundering of erroneous information <\/strong>(vaccines, Covid-19 models, early treatments) for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies, influencing regulators to approve products\u00a0with uncertain benefits and poorly assessed risks<\/a>\u00a0. They also supported individuals who used these journals and platforms like PubPeer to harass scientists both in the United States and in France. This \u00ab\u00a0pursue or life<\/em>\u00a0\u201c situation puts populations at risk, and judicial investigations could bring down those responsible if politicians\u00a0do not act.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Nadaff’s article embodies a crisis of scientific integrity, with Nature, Bik, and PubPeer contributing to information pollution and error laundering. The\u00a0France-Soir<\/em>\u00a0investigations, the Vidal\/Raoult report, and the ScienceGuardians\u00a0TM<\/sup>\u00a0revelations , combined with Wood’s study and Hulscher’s criticisms, demand reform and consideration by French authorities. The Bhattacharya-backed \u201cRestore the Gold Standard\u201d decree, along with the DOJ investigations and Couperin audits, could force Nature to account in the United States. Ongoing criminal complaints could well lead to indictments of these individuals. Will it have taken 5 years for justice to be served?<\/strong><\/p>\n The truth, built with gradual labor, will eventually prevail, as in the fable of the hare and the tortoise.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nMiryam Nadaff’s bias: a more than compromised objectivity<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"Nature\"](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_492.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n\n
\u00a0<\/li>\n
\u00a0<\/li>\n
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher\u00a0denounces the invisibility of these studies<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0by journals like Nature, accusing a \u201cblackout<\/em>\u201c orchestrated against scientists critical of vaccine narratives.\u00a0Nadaff and Nature reportedly do not mention any of them<\/strong>, favoring a one-sided narrative favorable to vaccines, which compromises their credibility.<\/p>\n![\"700](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/styles\/max_1300x1300\/public\/2025-07\/IMAGE%20FRAMEWORK%20-%202025-07-03T093522.907.jpg?itok=Ujuok8e-\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Einstein Prize: a controversial legitimacy<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/li>\n
\u00a0<\/li>\n![\"EF](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_488.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nInformation pollution<\/strong><\/a> and laundering of false information<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"Information](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_493.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nThe \u201charassment sphere\u201d: a coordinated network<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"Harcelosphere\"](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_494.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nScience GuardiansTM<\/sup>\u00a0et PubPeer<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Nature Springer: A Laundering Loop?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"Autopsie](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/styles\/max_1300x1300\/public\/2024-04\/IMAGE.jpeg?itok=-wsUHUGI\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\nThe role of\u00a0<\/strong>France-Soir<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0: a critical voice for the truth<\/strong><\/h5>\n
The \u201cRestore the Gold Standard in Science\u201d decree: a call for transparency<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"Restoring\"](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_495.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nDOJ Investigations, Contract Cancellations, and Insider Trading<\/strong><\/h5>\n
The Couperin agreements and ongoing audits<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"CNRS\"](\"https:\/\/www.francesoir.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/inline-images\/image_496.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nAnalogy with the subprime crisis<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n