three years later

This seem to be the idea Vincent Fleury have of the L2/R2 vortices!

filmtourbillon.jpeg

They migrated from one stage of development to another, don’t look very much as any vortex I knew about and certainly aren’t any of the 2D vortices Fleury was talking about, rather a lousy 2D projection of wishful thinking.

In the mean time, people do things in a much better way, without evidence of the L2/R2 stuff:

Which bring us back to:

so many…

smv.jpg

Second anniversary and still no evidence of L2/R2. If you see any please contact immediately Dr Vincent Fleury.

L2/R2, suite

L2R2-failw.jpg

Toujours manquants à l’appel !

Lire la suite

P’tit jeu

Ce petit jeu vous est proposé en association avec « coincoin« , l’un des commentateurs du blog de Tom Roud.

L’une des deux images est passée par Photoshop, l’autre est le résultat d’une manipulation de biologistes, sans Photoshop, mais avec un électroporateur, ce qui parfois peut produire des effets analogues, mais sur de la matière vivante plutôt qu’avec des pixels.

Les deux versions sont notées A et B. Il s’agit de réfléchir un petit moment sur ce qu’elles représentent, sur la raison de leur présence sur ce blog et essayer de deviner laquelle j’ai trafiquée.

Prenez votre temps, ne soyez pas pressés.

Quand vous aurez choisi quelle est l’image trafiquée, vous trouverez la réponse ici. Et vous pourrez admirer l’original .

Qu’est-ce que vous avez gagné ? Le plaisir d’avoir eu raison. Qu’est-ce que vous auriez pu perdre ? Une théorie ? J’en sais rien 😉

f_like_fuck.jpg

Avec mes remerciement à « coincoin » pour m’avoir indiqué ce papier, que j’avais complètement loupé (et il semble que je ne suis pas le seul).

EPMAG

vox populi, vox rei

OK, the full review was found too much aggressive toward the author and the referees and the editor. Concerning the staff of Organogenesis I must say that they done the worst job, I’m aware of, while reviewing and accepting this paper.

I hope that no biologist was involved in the review process and that the editor that handled the paper didn’t read it carefully. If some bioscientist read the paper carefully and didn’t found the flaws all I can suggest is a battery of cognitive tests, ASAP.
The « sandwich » is one of the horrible examples of ignorance the author displayed and the review process didn’t corrected. Shame on them.
Credibility of the journal may be evaluated as the inverse of the number of flaws you will be able to spot.

The model is flawed. No crack propagation to explain the PS progress (the basal lamina is present below it ’till stage 3), prepaterning of the PS before it’s formation (recent data), no « four vortices » visible on the epiblast, no vortices in the mesoderm, mesodermal cells migration patterns falsely described, etc.

As MarkCC put it [edit Agathi; he never read things completely?]:

Invalid models do not produce valid results. Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not get your paper published in a decent journal. Do get laughed at by people who aren’t clueless jackasses.

I’ll add:

  • Journals that publish such papers do not pass go, do not collect subscriptions and aren’t available from decent libraries. Even if the editorial board have the illusion of publishing interesting stuff, on the basis of inappropriate review.
  • Invalid models can’t produce anything valid, especially theories.
    Down the drain gone Fleury’s theory.

I’ll keep this paper easily accessible, as it’s the only one I have seen where the author states that the problem discussed isn’t analytically tractable while he claims an analytically exact description of it. (do you need to be an expert to find that suspicious?)

People that offered « time will tell » as the final remark should reconsider their standards. One shouldn’t leave flawed theories persist in scientific grounds as they disqualify not only their authors but also their environment, including those tolerant by ignorance. That explain why just after posting my memo to the library, to avoid a subscription to Organogenesis, I cleaned my blogroll at C&C. I don’t like to link to « time will tell » users.

I consider that I done my share. F*ck V »I »F, his flawed model, his silly theory, his genetics and evolution denialism, and those stupid enough to consider them, either to build more stupid theories on them, e.g. Jean Staune, or respectfully, believing that tolerance of stupidity is equivalent to good manners.

got mail

A friend contacted me after reading the draft of the review of EPMAG. With permission:

As you say, no need to be an expert to be sure that no embryologist reviewed the paper. Too much BS in there. And who cares about the exactitude of the mathematical formulas if they apply to a fictional space? […]

Let the guy at his illusions and Organogenesis think they got some genius with a revolutionary theory, delusion seems to be « in » these days. If in the future you find a citation of it, then it will be time to publish a full paper; waiting for this moment don’t help him correct his errors, the « sandwich » episode was funny but now he is aware that he must change the description. Leave him in ignorance. Ignoranus, that’s the word you spotted the other day, isn’t it? V »I »F 😀 Mon Français n’es[t] pas mauvais

He got a point here. Even if his French isn’t perfect 😛

It may be interesting to let thing go further to make a « strike ». Any other opinions available? Use mail, I wouldn’t set up a poll just for that 😉

Three questions; should I:

  • polish the draft and let it go public
  • keep the draft private and document with extracts from the paper (public is without to respect copyrights)
  • keep the « time will tell » attitude, despite the fact that I found it unethical? (the guy is presenting his « work » to students, please consider that before answering)

FSM

Flying Spaghetti Monster apparition, in Google search about vortices:

FSM.
Pastafarism in the sky, yeah! (clic the photo for source and more)