📢 ALERTE INFO. Nuñez propose d'employer une douzaine de canons Caesar et le Charles-de-Gaule comme "nouveaux modes d'action contre les casseurs".
Thomas Kesteman🦠🧫🔬🌏
@tomk.eurosky.social
3.4K followers 2.4K following 2.4K posts
Dad👧👧👧/Husband/Clinical Microbiology in LMIC & Epidemiology of ID Immigrant from🇧🇪 to 🇦🇫🇫🇷🇲🇬🇱🇧🇻🇳 Concerned about inequities and scientific integrity, yet dyed-in-the-wool optimist.😊 All views my own, but I share because sharing is caring. (he/him/his/🦥)
![2 emails, side by side:
(1) From: Doctor
Date: Monday, … 2026 at 18:46
To: Thomas Kesteman
Subject: Subject: Your ethical misconduct and personal obsessions
Sir,
Your recent comments go beyond the scope of scientific criticism, descending outright into the ridiculous and defamatory.
Your unhealthy obsession with my work is beginning to raise serious questions about your objectivity—if not your professional stability. This represents the absolute nadir of scientific criticism.
If you were a competent reviewer, you would know that science is based on evidence, not on your personal moods, paranoid intuitions, or manifest inability to understand our data.
A copy of this email, along with the history of your systematic and biased interventions against my work, is being forwarded immediately to the editorial board and your management to report your serious ethical misconduct and harassment.
I will not waste another second responding to your ramblings.
(2) From: Doctor
Date: Monday, … 2026 at 23:51
To: Thomas Kesteman
Subject: Re: Dear Thomas
Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your message and for the clarifications regarding your approach. I understand that your post-publication review work aims to uphold scientific integrity, and I recognize the importance of this process for improving scientific literature.
My situation and concerns
However, I would like to humbly share my reality with you: I have struggled to achieve these publications. As a researcher without adequate grants or funding, every publication represents a considerable effort. Your latest comment affected me deeply, as it seemed more personal than scientific, and I felt my reputation was being impugned.
I wish to clarify a few points:
My current involvement: While it is true that I have joined associations promoting [intervention], my research is currently guided solely by scientific results and national and international policies.
Impact on my thesis: Frankly, your repeated interventions on PubPeer are a maj…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreidqzhcdzpcc6y5zrtkmmbixlmmanv4viwzz43ccwj5pumiskk5yf4)
![Retracted article in MDPI's nanomaterials, available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/8/11/878
Retraction
RETRACTED: Al-Hussain et al. Application of New Sodium
Vinyl Sulfonate–co-2-Acrylamido-2-me[thylpropane Sulfonic
Acid Sodium Salt-Magnetite Cryogel Nanocomposites for Fast
Methylene Blue Removal from Industrial Waste Water.
Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 878
Sami A. Al-Hussain 1
, Ayman M. Atta 2,* , Hamad A. Al-Lohedan 2
, Abdelrahman O. Ezzat 2
and Ahmed M. Tawfeek 2
1 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU),
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; sahussain@imamu.edu.sa
2 Surfactants Research Chair, Chemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; hlohedan@ksu.edu.sa (H.A.A.-L.); ao_ezzat@yahoo.com (A.O.E.);
atawfik@ksu.edu.sa (A.M.T.)
* Correspondence: aatta@ksu.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-056-155-7975
The journal retracts the article titled “Application of New Sodium Vinyl Sulfonate–co2-Acrylamido-2-me[thylpropane Sulfonic Acid Sodium Salt-Magnetite Cryogel Nanocomposites for Fast Methylene Blue Removal from Industrial Waste Water” [1], cited above.
Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher concerning the integrity of several figures presented in this article [1].
According to the journal’s standard procedures, the Editorial Office and Editorial
Board conducted an investigation that identified indications of inappropriate editing in
Figures 2, 3 and 5. While the authors collaborated during the investigation and provided
supporting materials, the Editorial Board concluded that the concerns could not be resolved
satisfactorily based on the available information.
Consequently, the Editorial Board has lost confidence in the reliability of the reporte](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreidpvdmrm3vrjg3lyurb4xktbqsr246glydagkey5srcbmsl4u6lpi)
![PubPeer comment:
Alexis Lacout
comment accepted June 2026
It is quite reassuring to see that there is no substantive comment, just as there is no comment on Raoult’s latest study with 30,000 patients, which definitively proved the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, after the earlier, less perfect studies, and the PRINCIPLE study carried out urgently by the team of Gautret et al.
It would seem that there is a coalition of people who may have other conflicts of interest, commissioned and paid to cause harm, and to promote vaccines, which could not have been promoted in the presence of an effective treatment.
It is a delight to see these reactions, like a swan song, before the truth becomes entirely clear to everyone throughout the world.
[Moderator: we would normally not accept such a comment, but sometimes a beautiful response causes us to relent.]
Available on: https://web.archive.org/web/20260602143528/https://pubpeer.com/publications/5C180D034B11F9D54E5D54327F3288](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreiexnlp5ta5jb3v7sqzzoayqyren5rddtz4z4sgo5lgcoxw76shjhq)
![Bar chart of "Length of Wars 42 Days after Beginning"
Afghanistan war, Iraq war, Vietnam war, US civil war, WWII, Korean War, War of 1812, and "Iran Excursion" all lasted 6 weeks [of course]
tomk@eurosky.social](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreifywnznr7ek6oy7evnaoshxnxk5j7ve5jdwqq3dkualcvnre5h33u)
![Fig. 1. Isolation guidelines for respiratory virus infections in comparison to experimental evidence on transmission routes. Isolation guidelines for all respiratory viruses discussed in this review from National (Working Group Infection Prevention (WIP) [108], from the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)), European (‘The Blue Book’ [109]), American (‘The Red Book’ [110] and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [3]) and International (UpToDate [111]) organizations are shown on the X-axis, together with the experimental evidence on transmission routes (Table 2). The categories on the Y-axis are the different transmission routes (contact, droplet or aerosol), the absence of guidelines for infection prevention (‘No guideline’), or the limited availability of experimental data (‘Lim. exp. data’). The information shown for influenza virus reflects the guidelines on seasonal influenza virus. Closed squares (■): isolation guidelines for the respective respiratory virus. Open squares (□): guidelines are only for children ≤6 years old. Open circles (○): data from stability experiments only. Open triangles (▵): specific CDC guidelines for Healthcare Professionals [115] (not the isolation guideline [3] used in this review).
The figure shows that MERS, SARS, AV, Flu are presented as transmitted by droplets in most references. MV, PIV, RSV, and RV are also sometimes presented as such.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2018.01.001](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreiej3j4rbu43lkmjfx7lhbnfbchb6arkrfq2kyt5ht73a556fsziaa)
![Screenshot of PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Retraction: Coxiella burnetii in Humans and Ticks in Rural Senegal
The PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Editors
Published: April 9, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0014195
The PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Materials and Methods section in [1] reports that the study involved blood samples collected in 2008 and breast milk samples collected in 2009, as well as saliva and stool samples (collection period not reported). The ethics approval statement reported in this article states that the project was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France), but does not report approval reference numbers.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreihok3ewzugojgbaqhm6e3ff4cqpv7o5t35tlbioyprk2n4jljst4y)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Low-dose chest CT for diagnosing and assessing the extent of lung involvement of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia using a semi quantitative score
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 9, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346849
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
Following the publication of the article and Expression of Concern [1,2], PLOS investigated concerns pertaining to the reported ethical approval and the article’s adherence to PLOS One’s research ethics policies.
Specifically, concerns were raised that the study involved human participants but the article did not report Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ethics approval, and the ethics approval number N°:2020–0012 cited in [1] was also reported in [3] despite apparent differences in the reported study period and sample sizes.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreie56n4kr3cevq4hz2lpjlde6o7e3eajsutjwebw5xhwo6xx5vgnfy)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Eukaryote Culturomics of the Gut Reveals New Species
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 6, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346536
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Materials and Methods section in [1,2] reports sampling of stool specimens from individuals from Polynesia, Amazonia, Senegal, and India, but the article does not clarify when these samples were collected. The ethics approval reported in the article refers to agreement #09–022 issued by the Ethics Committee of the Institut Fédératif de Recherche 48 (IFR48), Marseilles, France. The article does not report prospective, local ethics approval from institutions or agencies in Polynesia, Amazonia, Senegal, or India. Furthermore, PLOS noted that the ethics approval number #09–022 was also reported in at least 247 other studies despite apparent differences in the aims and objectives, study locations, study populations, age ranges, methodologies, types of samples collected, and types of consent described in these studies. S1 File contains a summary of articles citing ethics approval number #09–022 of which PLOS is aware.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreihhlzesdqv4kosggbxucftq5t6hmuagi5o63qjkouaduhot6p6mge)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Molecular detection of eukaryotes in a single human stool sample from Senegal
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 7, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346619
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Abstract and the Materials and Methods section in [1] report that the study involved stool samples obtained from a volunteer in Senegal. The ethics approval statement reported in this article states that both this study and the assent procedure were approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal (CNERS) and the Ethics Committee of the Institut Fédératif de Recherche IFR 48, Faculty of Medecine, Marseille, France (agreement number N° 09–022). PLOS notes that agreement number N° 09–022 was also reported in at least 247 other studies despite apparent differences in the aims and objectives, study locations, study populations, age ranges, methodologies, types of samples collected, and types of consent described in these studies. S1 File contains a summary of articles citing ethics approval number N° 09–022 of which PLOS is aware.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreig5pyebjikrehpiuznug3mys5rsp2pogg3p7dxjk73r6hciomauli)
![Screenshot of PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Retraction: Coxiella burnetii in Humans and Ticks in Rural Senegal
The PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Editors
Published: April 9, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0014195
The PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Materials and Methods section in [1] reports that the study involved blood samples collected in 2008 and breast milk samples collected in 2009, as well as saliva and stool samples (collection period not reported). The ethics approval statement reported in this article states that the project was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France), but does not report approval reference numbers.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreifqbnaf52jnhdbv76vo772rcf73sb5dwos7dohmxoq5d6zpdywfb4)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Low-dose chest CT for diagnosing and assessing the extent of lung involvement of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia using a semi quantitative score
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 9, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346849
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
Following the publication of the article and Expression of Concern [1,2], PLOS investigated concerns pertaining to the reported ethical approval and the article’s adherence to PLOS One’s research ethics policies.
Specifically, concerns were raised that the study involved human participants but the article did not report Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ethics approval, and the ethics approval number N°:2020–0012 cited in [1] was also reported in [3] despite apparent differences in the reported study period and sample sizes.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreifh4s4jk3qdnjgnqe3nb3v3kl65pl2m42y74tjp7p776i33grkwsy)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Eukaryote Culturomics of the Gut Reveals New Species
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 6, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346536
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Materials and Methods section in [1,2] reports sampling of stool specimens from individuals from Polynesia, Amazonia, Senegal, and India, but the article does not clarify when these samples were collected. The ethics approval reported in the article refers to agreement #09–022 issued by the Ethics Committee of the Institut Fédératif de Recherche 48 (IFR48), Marseilles, France. The article does not report prospective, local ethics approval from institutions or agencies in Polynesia, Amazonia, Senegal, or India. Furthermore, PLOS noted that the ethics approval number #09–022 was also reported in at least 247 other studies despite apparent differences in the aims and objectives, study locations, study populations, age ranges, methodologies, types of samples collected, and types of consent described in these studies. S1 File contains a summary of articles citing ethics approval number #09–022 of which PLOS is aware.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreigop7u7qo3ai6isoqbs445pyfmffaejw5lj3fyzlcslzlvgh5nniq)
![Screenshot of PLoS One
Retraction: Molecular detection of eukaryotes in a single human stool sample from Senegal
The PLOS One Editors
Published: April 7, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346619
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] due to concerns about compliance with the PLOS Human Subjects Research policy.
The Abstract and the Materials and Methods section in [1] report that the study involved stool samples obtained from a volunteer in Senegal. The ethics approval statement reported in this article states that both this study and the assent procedure were approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal (CNERS) and the Ethics Committee of the Institut Fédératif de Recherche IFR 48, Faculty of Medecine, Marseille, France (agreement number N° 09–022). PLOS notes that agreement number N° 09–022 was also reported in at least 247 other studies despite apparent differences in the aims and objectives, study locations, study populations, age ranges, methodologies, types of samples collected, and types of consent described in these studies. S1 File contains a summary of articles citing ethics approval number N° 09–022 of which PLOS is aware.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kt52gyydioubutqfkoiy4x4m/bafkreihhwow624vmijdp3bwbdi6aiwvhtwy2pgmimsygmf4xp3o2qttzvm)
