Mon. May 20th, 2024

Sprinkler watered before the backlash – Bik by seeing copied and pasted everywhere finds them, but they are not!

Natasha Kumar By Natasha Kumar Apr17,2024

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by seeing the copied and pasted everywhere, but they are not there

FranceSoir – midjourney Sprinkler watered before the backlash: Elizabeth Bik, "cherry picking" studies!

Following Elizabeth Bik's allegations of fraud, many of which are against the IHU-Mediterranean, we became interested in her work. Indeed, many gray areas were noted in one of her 2022 articles and she is far from being above suspicion.

For example, regarding her past, she declares having left uBiome, the American startup which in 2019 will be the subject of a resounding bankruptcy and an FBI investigation causing the two founders to hastily leave the United States to seek refuge. in Germany! Elizabeth Bik was the company's scientific director and wrote numerous articles, published with the founders of uBiome without ever requesting retraction even though she knew that the microbiota tests sold by the company did not work. The investigation carried out on this subject will show substantial insurance fraud since old samples were re-analyzed by being re-invoiced to the insurance a second time! Elisabeth Bik, as a conscientious scientist could not not know this. The darkness surrounding this situation has been confirmed by microbiome specialists. For them, “Bik made a deal with the founders or federal investigators”

Another gray area concerns the effective date of its departure from uBiome. Bik said on Questioned by France-Soir on two occasions, she did not find the time to answer our questions…

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -stuck everywhere, but they are not there

However, by looking more closely at Elisabeth Bik's declarations of fraud, the analysis images of Charles V. attract attention. Elisabeth Bik reportedly specializes in identifying photo fraud and photo duplicates. Charles V., using his expertise in computer graphics, noted numerous inconsistencies in his analyses.  Is this one of the reasons why she did not respond to our requests?

We present the analyzes below as well as the reasons why < strong>Elisabeth Bik is greatly mistaken in her conclusionswhich could only be linked to problems of definition of the published images. The consequences of these errors, because they contradict the accusations of fraud of many scientists, thus contributing to sully their reputation by casting doubt on their work. 

Introduction to the analysis of verifying BIK claims

Elisabeth Bik specializes in “detecting studies which, according to her, would be tainted by fraud”.  To do this, it uses the Pubpeer platform which presents a series of tools intended to strengthen the traditional peer review process, including allowing comments from scientists and members of the public.  A form of social network for exchange on science.

Bik claims on its site an activity of “scientific integrity consultant” and “1069 retractions, 149 expressions of reservations, and 1008 Corrections (in November 2023 )”. Bik specifically targets the publications of the IHU-Mediterranean.

Charles V. was therefore interested in Bik's allegations on several articles from the IHU-Marseille.

  1. A first article reanalyzed leads to erroneous conclusions

Let's take a look at the article “Use of rpoB genetic analysis for the detection and identification of Bartonella species”published on February 1, 2001. Bik comments on Pubpeer ;the similarity of areas in a photo, thereby insinuating that this could constitute fraud.

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -glued everywhere, but they are not there

Madame BIK's comments are as follows: “On images 3 and 4:

  • Boxes of the same color show areas (some including bands) that look more similar than expected.
  • Green boxes indicate sharp background transitions.
  • The area above the bands in lanes 1 to 5 in Figure 4 also appears to show repetitiveness.”

She adds thatthe “image has been made darker to bring out more features. This is probably far from the case, but would the authors still have the original photos on gel?”

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -stuck everywhere, but they are not there!

Checking the first article challenged by Bik

A verification of Bik's assertions is necessary. After all, in science, the important thing is replicability, but it is also a matter of tools and methods. The verification process is explained below.

In order to verify a photo, we extracted the image questioned by Bik from the original file in PDF format to guarantee its authenticity. Its properties and characteristics are as follows: img60.png PNG 1960×1198 1960×1198+0+0 8-bit Gray 256c 471046B 0.000u 0:00.000

Bik claims, without real evidence,that two areas of the photo would be duplicated.

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -glued everywhere, but they are not there!

Using simple photo analysis tools, and after detailed examination, it appears that the Bik's argument is flawed.  It cannot be a duplication, but two areas which, although they have visual similarities, cannot result from a duplication.

As is taken who thought he was taken.

p>

Instead, let's see, based on two methods, how Bik concludes in a completely erroneous way.

First Method: check if “areas identified as duplicated” really are /strong>

The photo in which there would be duplicated areas is as follows.

Using image editing software (GIMP):

  • The Bg zone is extracted. This area is 84 pixels wide by 51 pixels high;
  • A copy and paste of this area is duplicated on the photo in order to have a test or control area. This therefore makes it possible to duplicate with certainty the area which is supposed to have been duplicated, the famous hypothesis put forward by Bik.

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by dint of seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they don't find any ;are not!Computer graphics software allows you to find if there is <strong>a sequence (or <em>pattern</em>)<em> </em></strong>in English on this photo. Since part of the image has been duplicated on the image, the software should technically find this sequence.</p>
<p>The recognition algorithm uses three parameters: the source image, the image pattern (the small extract of the area that interests us) and a precision threshold (<em>threshold</em>) which goes from 0 to 1 (1 being the exact image, 0 everything).</p>
<p>At the threshold of 0.999, the <strong>pattern recognition as well as the copy-pasted witness are identified</strong> and there are no other zones detected.  By lowering the threshold to 0.97, three zones are identified as identical. This is what Elisabeth Bik was able to detect in order to draw conclusions of duplication and therefore fraud.</p>
<p><p><img decoding=

In addition, the colometry in Pubpeer is different from the original image in the PDF and Bik file writes in his article that “the images were further examined for evidence of image duplication or manipulation using the color adjustment tool in Preview software on an Apple iMac computer.”

Ironically, if Bik turns off her screen, or sets the brightness to zero, she will find a big copy and paste of black. Aside from this ironic trait, a screen can be calibrated, there are devices that allow you to do this.

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by dint of seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there !

In conclusion, these non-automated and non-reproducible image analysis techniques have no scientific character and are purely subjective.

Methodology 2: identification of points remarkable

Bik may not use an automated and reproducible scientific approach to identify its frauds, however it seems important to us to test another method.

The second method used is that of comparing remarkable pointsof the image from a very powerful detection tool, FAST Feature Detector.

This tool is very often used to do point tracking for image stabilization. The hypothesis is: if two areas are similar, they have the same remarkable points. (https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/df/d0c/tutorial_py_fast.html< u>).

Here is the result obtained on the same image. Clear result confirming the hypothesis that there is no copy-paste as suggested by the fraud hunter: between the original zone, the copied zone, the remarkable points are similar, on the other hand for the zone “ imagined” by Bik, they are different by their cardinalities, but also by their positions. Which is compatible with the first methodology

 Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -stuck everywhere, but they are not there!

  1. Second article checked : Bik conclusions erroneous

As part of the second article identified as potentially having duplicate areas in an image (Survival of Environmental Mycobacteria in Acanthamoeba polyphaga) a simple analysis was carried out on the image which may seem ridiculous both on a methodological and scientific level. The image was saved and opened in GIMP image editing software.

Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik sees copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there! </p>
<p>The first step is to zoom in the image by 1100% – with the naked eye you can see that the areas are different.</p>
<p><p><img decoding=

  • Verification of the third publication of 2005(Bartonella vinsoniiarupensis  as an agent of culture-negative endocarditis in humans). Bik would also have identified problems with duplicate zones which she reports on Pubpeer:
  •  Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not

    We will therefore verify Bik's analysis by demonstrating that the online service used is not 100% reliable.

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by dint of seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there !

    We recreate a duplicate of the area that Bik considers identical by checking with the matching application used in the very first check: at the threshold of 0.999, there is no duplicate area identified , but there is one at the threshold of 0.97. Déjà vu: same result and same conclusion.

     Watering machine watered before the return of concrete - Bik sees copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there

    In response to his comment and argument in Pubpeer:  “…Forensically also found the other duplication, as well as several false positives.” However, using the FotoForensics software, with the default settings, we do not obtain the same results (illustration below).

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -stuck everywhere, but they are not there!

    Unscientific analysis, because Bik does not indicate how she managed to obtain this result, which is therefore not replicable.

    However, we went further by using Sherloq, a software that Bik recommends on his blog. This shows that Bik knows how to search on GitHub. This software is recognized by the community as a forensic analysis tool.

    Sherlog allows you to display significant points: although geographically “fairly” close, they are different, as are their cardinalities.

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by dint of seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there !

    Sherlog offers several methods to detect copy-pasted

    With the BRISK (Binary Robust Invariant Scale Keypoint) method: no detection. With the ORB Oriented FAST and Rotated Brief method, with a sensitivity threshold of 5% matching, no copy.

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not!

    With a sensitivity threshold of 10%, we find results that could be similar to those disputed by BIK.

    Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik by seeing copies and pastes everywhere, but they are not there! /></p>
</p>
<p>Finally, with the AKAZE (Accelerated KAZE) method, <strong>no </strong><strong>copy is detected.</strong></p>
<p> < p><strong></p>
<p><img decoding=

    Let's take the analysis further and focus on the areas of different colors in image 4 which we reproduce below:

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -glued everywhere, but they are not there!

    Simply by putting the areas side by side, the difference is visible to the naked eye.< /p>

     Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -pasted everywhere, but they are not there! 2024/04/42da5be77dddb81b52a59225b644f39c.png

    Which are not confirmed with Sherloq! > Sprinkler watered before the return of concrete - Bik from seeing copies -glued everywhere, but they are not there! li>This lady's disputes<strong>are unfounded</strong>.</li>
<li>Her error(s) is/are due to an underestimation of 3% difference.</li>
<li>This error is not due to the JPEG compression of the image in the PDF file.</li>
<li>Two methodologies were applied to be sure of the result (even though it is not indicates none, other than a Software as Service service).</li>
<li>The same conclusions have been demonstrated for other publications.</li>
<li>Furthermore, it is shown that she does not use the software that she herself advises on her blog (Forensically ).</li>
</ul>
<p>His intention to denounce scientific fraud is laudable, because scientific integrity is the basis of trust in science. However, we can only wonder about her intentions when she attacks IHU publications. And who pays her to denigrate the work of researchers with a pseudo-scientific approach, since it cannot be replicated… </p>
<p>Moreover, by using her own fraud-hunting methods on her own publication, this the latter is subject to the same criticisms.  One question remains: why doesn't she check her method on her own publications before applying it to others?</p>
<p>Bik's conclusions are therefore unfounded and she should withdraw her comments or risk being called a fraudster herself.  Or sprinkler watered.</p>
<p> Click to download the analysis.  </p>
<h4>ALSO READ</h4>
<p>Is Elisabeth Bik, “the detector of scientific fraud” who constantly criticizes Didier Raoult, above all suspicion? INVESTIGATION – Elisabeth Bik, self-proclaimed “scientific fraud detector”, has been trying for more than three years to demonstrate, mainly on the Pu site… November 1, 2022 – 6:30 p.m. Company Elisabeth Bik, integrity consultant scientific, can only have played an essential role in the launch of Ubiome's fraudulent billing systems TRIBUNE – The only legitimacy of "clinical" as part of this project was based on publications that have been successfully published after evaluation by pa… February 6, 2024 – 5:00 p.m. Opinions </p>
<p><strong>Did you like the article? It mobilized our editorial staff which only lives on your donations.</strong><br /> Information has a cost, especially since competition from subsidized editorial staff requires additional rigor and professionalism.</p>
<p>With your support, France-Soir will continue to offer its articles free of charge  because we believe that everyone should have access to free and independent information to form their own opinion.</p>
<p>You are the sine qua non condition for our existence, support us so that France-Soir remains the French media that allows the most legitimate expression.</p>
<!-- adman_adcode_after --><script async src=

    Natasha Kumar

    By Natasha Kumar

    Natasha Kumar has been a reporter on the news desk since 2018. Before that she wrote about young adolescence and family dynamics for Styles and was the legal affairs correspondent for the Metro desk. Before joining The Times Hub, Natasha Kumar worked as a staff writer at the Village Voice and a freelancer for Newsday, The Wall Street Journal, GQ and Mirabella. To get in touch, contact me through my natasha@thetimeshub.in 1-800-268-7116

    Related Post