three years later

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


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…


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

L2/R2, suite


Toujours manquants à l’appel !

Lire la suite

he did it again!

That’s weird, he do know that his paper EPMAG is just a set of hypotheses and if he learned anything about chick development since he wrote it he should know that there are a lot of errors in it, and he should spend some time preparing a corrigendum for EPMAG, Organogenesis.

We had kind of a discussion here to prove that even the editor in chief of Organogenesis consider the paper as an hypothesis, but Vincent Fleury still present it as a published work that could support his theory: No, definitively no.

Do you think that such a conduct is ethical? Don’t consider scientific ethics in particular, just general ones.

Well, well, well, there was a lot of fuzz about that point and it would be stupid to go through it without learning something. What I learned is that Fleury didn’t learned anything.

maximum exposure

puc_nca.jpgTo be continued, comments closed, related comments posted in an other thread will be simply deleted.

For and Fleury’s comments. Comments aren’t the place where Google or Yahoo! will seek information in priority. And I wouldn’t edit comments (throw them away completely leaving the reason I’ve done so, the IP and e-mail of the person who send them certainly, but not editing them as DaveScott did at UD).

So, I’ll take them out and annotate directly:

I am surprised by the general tone and content of this post, clearly defamatory.

Clearly defamatory? One more word you will have to check in the dictionary.

The comment of Mr Davies is a general comment at large about theoretical papers.

Yes, and in private e-mail he said he understand the word « model » to be sufficient to not use « hypothesis » in the title. If you can get permission from him I’ll post here his saying, not as editor in chief of Organogenesis but as Prof Jame Davies’ saying.

My work is not a “hypothesis” without any experimental support, conceived out of the blue.

I don’t know what your work is Fleury, and I will not loose time trying to qualify it, other wll do probably better then I. I’m just discussing about your model/hypotheses. In the particular paper about which I exchanged with Jamie Davies, there is not the slightest connexion between presumptions and experimental data. Nada! Vacuum.

Especially the article which you discuss with Prof. Davies contains only two true hypothesis, namely

first : that the blastula is much wider than thick, a fact well established (the “sheets” of the blastula being about a hundred times wider than thick,).

The second hypothesis is that there exists a contraction area in the shape of a crescent or sickle. I, of course, did not invent out of nothing the existence of this. It is the well known Koller-Rauber sickle. These are the only hypothesis of the model, and they are based on wet biology, as you say.

Wrong! there is at least one more: that cells behave approximatively the same way. A quite disturbing approximation during a differentiation process where cells are well characterized by autonomous movements following morphogenic gradients other then the generic movements you consider to be the only ones driving the phenomenon.

Then, it follows from sound mathematics a number of consequences :

that the deformation field in the blastula should be of vortices, which are observed

that there should exist a flow oriented caudally, which is the case,

that the flow lines recirculate around a saddle point, which is observed

and that this point is the point of highest stress at right angles of the antero posterior axis, located where Koller Sickle intersects the AP axis. This suggests that the engulfment of the epiblast which starts there is induced by mechanical forces, not by chemicals.

Next, I did a number of other things, which are not in that paper, but which are also backed by experimental data (I have shown that many features such as blood vessels are aligned in the stretch field, etc.) most of which is published

I demand that you leave this message as a response to your defamatory claims.

If you don’t I shall take any legal step to enforce it.

You certainly do not have a right to hold a blog where such defamatory statements are left for good, and in which the only victim is not allowed to reply.

In addition, I demand that you cancel all links towards neocreationnists pages, in relation to my name. Otherwise I will have these cancelled by law.

Now, let’s see. Is this one a link between your name, Vincent Fleury and a neocreationist site? Or this one: Vincent Fleury. Please reply clearly in the comments.

You are not in a position to forbid to anyone to write books, especially considering that you do not yourself read the books in question.

Forbid writing books? Where have you read that I want to forbid to anyone to write books? Wrong interpretation one more time (hey, that was a quite nice idea to let your comments ou! I start appreciating it) What I repeat is that it’s lame to see people clamming theories which they hope scientific, in general public books, and in the mean time don’t be able to publish them in scientific journals. And that’s a quite weird behavior from scientists.


Smart people have to leave sterile discussions first.

Antoine done so at the Sur-la-Toile forum. As he is smarter than Fleury I suppose he would validate the lazy comments he posted lately as he did for those injurious posted before. It should take a few minutes to convince him. So, I done so.

So Fleury decided to avoid scientific journals for his theory and it’s wise to do so, and like Pivar threaten with legal action. Unable to go to the scientific arena, that’s it.

Now, I will welcome here every single comment of Fleury and discuss it extensively. So, stay tuned for my take on this one, later in the day. Fucking interesting stuff in there.

Hey, Fleury, Start preparing a justification about an hypothesis you didn’t listed in your comment: the approximation of cell’s behaving similarly.

It will be fun.

Cell death along the embryo midline regulates left-right sidedness

Kristine A. Kelly, Yan Wei, Takashi Mikawa

Developmental Dynamics Volume 224, Issue 2, Pages 238-244

nfig001.jpgFigure 1. Midline cells are molecularly specified before Hensen’s node formation. Expression of gastrulation genes fgf-8 (a,b,e,f,i,j) and brachyury (c,d,g,h,k,l) was examined with RNA in situ hybridization at the prestreak Hamburger and Hamilton (HH) stage 1(9) (a,c), the mid-streak HH stage 3 (b,d,e,g), and the definitive streak HH stage 4 (f,h). Note that only higher expression was selectively detected with submaximal color development. i-l: Transverse sections of e-h, respectively; Purple staining, the area positive for transcripts; arrows, the midline population exhibiting a unique expression pattern of gastrulation genes in the primitive streak midline; ps, primitive streak; hn, Hensen’s node; L and R, left and right sides of embryonic discs, respectively. Lire la suite