Well Done retweeted
Just as the Dreyfus Affair was about how France would demolish what made its civilization great to engage in antisemitism, the David Sabatini case is about how the US is sacrificing its greatest institutions and highest ideals to the successor ideology
Well Done retweeted
Focus on disability - our archive of films offering a refreshing view on physical and mental disability is constantly growing!
The topics include motherhood, sexuality, livelihood, and more:
dmovies.org/tag/focus-on-dis…
Well Done retweeted
Histone Modifications at the Intersection of Aging, Neuroinflammation and Metabolism in Alzheimer's Disease
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…
Well Done retweeted
LOW Intensity Ultrasound/ Traumatic Brain Injury/ Lymphatic Drainage
LIPUS restored neurological function in TBI mice, improving motor coordination and spatial/recognition memory while attenuating tau pathology, Aβ burden, and astrocyte reactivity. Mechanistically, LIPUS activated Piezo1 on meningeal lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs), triggering a downstream signaling cascade that promoted LEC proliferation and migration in vitro and restored lymphatic coverage and drainage function in vivo.
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound activates Piezo1 to restore brain lymphatic drainage and improve outcomes in traumatic brain injury mice - PubMed share.google/pu9VNONShOUudYh…
Well Done retweeted
A MUST READ #Review by David Sabatini on mTOR at the nexus of nutrition, growth, ageing and disease @DMSabatini @MIT #mTOR #metabolism
FREE PDF available: rdcu.be/b1bhA
Full article is here: go.nature.com/37YiyZp
Well Done retweeted
Vascular aging biomarkers: the role of ADMA, SDMA, and inflammation
Fig 1: Proposed endothelial-inflammatory framework linking ADMA, SDMA#, IL-6, and hsCRP to vascular aging and subclinical atherosclerosis. 👇👨⚕️
frontiersin.org/journals/car…
Well Done retweeted
Corrupt @MIT faculty were caught weaponizing DEI to falsely accuse and remove @DMSabatini from his lab
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES EXPLOSIVE PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEALING COORDINATION BETWEEN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND MIT PROFESSOR SANGEETA BHATIA IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes how Knouse and Bhatia privately celebrated Sabatini’s removal, discussed the potential destruction of his professional career, and anticipated the revocation of his @MIT tenure.
An 80-message exchange between Kristin Knouse and MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia, dated August 20–21, 2021, reveals their private reactions immediately following Whitehead Institute and HHMI's severance of ties with Professor @DMSabatini.
The communications contain statements that deserve serious public examination.
🔴 1. “YOU DID IT” — “AND HE’S OUT.”
On August 20, 2021, Bhatia congratulated Knouse:
🔴 “YOU DID IT. You crossed the finish line. It's out in the open. And you're not out in the open. And you're on the faculty. And he's out.”
Knouse responded:
🔴 “You connecting me to Nancy [Hopkins]was the turning point. I will never forget that walk in Lexington.”
🔴 2. “THIS WAS THE OUTCOME I DREAMED OF.”
The following morning, as news coverage spread, Knouse discussed the possibility of Sabatini losing his MIT tenure:
🔴 “Hard to imagine MIT will be left with any choice other than to revoke tenure.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “You're right about tenure”
She subsequently wrote:
🔴 “This was the outcome I dreamed of but NEVER certain I would get it.”
Knouse also described her assessment of Whitehead's handling of the matter:
🔴 “And as skeptical as I was of Whitehead's end game, in the end I think the overall process was perfectly executed.”
Bhatia expressed her approval of Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann:
🔴 “I'm proud of Ruth [Lehmann]”
These exchanges occurred months before MIT's April 2022 tenure-revocation recommendation.
🔴 3. THE PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES — BEYOND WHITEHEAD.
The participants also discussed Sabatini's corporate affiliations and prospects for future employment.
Knouse wrote:
🔴 “I know of one company already speaking with lawyers to remove him on grounds of morality clause.”
She subsequently stated:
🔴 “Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after the past 24 hours ...”
These were not merely discussions about an institutional investigation. They extended to the potential consequences for Sabatini's career, tenure, corporate affiliations, and future livelihood.
🔴 4. THE DIVERSITY SURVEY AND PROTECTION FROM PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION.
In another particularly consequential exchange, Bhatia wrote:
🔴 “Also the dei survey and subsequent investigation really protects you, which I love. There is not even a scent of whistleblower in all the press.”
This statement takes on particular significance alongside the previously disclosed communications in which Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration (📑 see the original court evidence in the first comment below).
🔴 5. “WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE” — CELEBRATING AS THE NEWS SPREAD.
Perhaps the most striking exchange appears on KK011419.
On August 21, 2021, Knouse declared:
🔴 “I KNOW! Young people took down a relatively young king. Progress, progress, progress.”
Knouse also wrote:
🔴 “Two other women who came forward and I drank champagne while watching the Tweets and articles roll in last night. It felt like campaign headquarters after an election victory. Really special.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “That's awesome.”
These exchanges reinforce the serious concerns about coordination and conflicts of interest raised by our previous disclosures. Their significance must be assessed alongside the full documentary record and the subsequent jury verdict.
The scientific community deserves full accountability for any misconduct established by the evidence, including the roles of individuals who participated in or improperly influenced the institutional processes that subjected Professor Sabatini to a devastating ordeal and profoundly damaged his career.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
Well Done retweeted
Its similar to what happens under communism, such as with Mao's purges of teachers/intellectuals. They are targeted, denied rights/due process, publically shamed by youth simply for being teachers and intellectuals, representing the enemy and the old guard share.google/KLYyUey2S1dUBo7… – at Perth, Western Australia
Well Done retweeted
There is so much to this story, and I’ve personally witnessed this kind of sabotage. The more I find, the more disgusted I am.
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
“I can’t wait to wake up tomorrow and feel like I’ve been gang-raped!”
MeToo hoaxer Kristin Knouse is confronted with her own crude texts to David Sabatini. She withheld these texts initially until the defamation lawsuit against her exposed them. (Follow me for more exclusives from this case.)
Well Done retweeted
Even lectures on his groundbreaking work were vanished like soviet photoshop.
teapawt.net/DMSabatini/status/1061…
Very happy to see the release of the three mTOR-related iBio videos we filmed over the summer. Was a real pleasure to work with such a professional team led by Karen Dell. mTOR and the Regulation of Growth • iBiology ibiology.org/cell-biology/mt…
Well Done retweeted
I thought I knew every horrible thing about this story, but it was not until I read @neerajadeshp's interview with Sabatini that I realized how total his unpersoning was
Former MIT scientist David Sabatini just won $6 million in a landmark case against false allegations of r*pe and sexual assault, which destroyed his career.
Once on track to win the Nobel Prize, Sabatini’s ex-girlfriend accused him of r*pe in 2020 and began calling him the ‘Weinstein of science.’ He was later accused of perpetuating a “bro culture” in his lab. As a result, he was stripped of all his funding, lost his job, and went bankrupt.
We interviewed Sabatini (@DMSabatini) about the verdict, which he says made him “proud to be an American.”
@neerajadeshp reports 👇
Well Done retweeted
The accusers derailed the career of a man on his way to win a Nobel Prize, and who could have made real progress towards curing cancer. The damage is almost incalculable.
Criminal charges for sure.
Well Done retweeted
Academia cannot be reformed until the PhD has standards again.
The degree should be reserved for the relatively few candidates whose dissertations create important new knowledge - not awarded as a certificate of persistence to nearly everyone who remains in a program long enough.
A system with meaningful standards must permit meaningful failure. Candidates who are unlikely to make a substantial original contribution should be identified early, given a respectable off-ramp, and allowed to enter the job market years sooner.
This would reduce the oversupply of PhDs competing for a tiny number of academic positions and grants. With fewer people trapped in that cutthroat competition, academia would reward fewer of the behaviors produced by desperation and scarcity.
Companies accustomed to an abundant supply of PhD applicants would also have to recruit from the larger pool of capable people who left doctoral programs without the degree. The skills would remain valuable; only the credential would become scarce.
If the PhD once again signified exceptional scholarly, it would resolve many of academia’s current pathologies.
Well Done retweeted
Alzheimer’s disease genetics converges on microglial and neuronal dysregulation
nature.com/articles/s41586-0…
Well Done retweeted
A glimpse at the rot behind the curtain. This is academia, but it’s rarely exposed because fighting universities is almost impossible for many reasons.
Faculty lose their career to even try defending themselves from corrupt administrators; and the odds of winning are close to zero because the deck is stacked at every level. Even if everything goes in favor of a faculty member, the courts grant administrators almost absolute immunity under the guise of academic freedom. Not only university bylaws are not binding to administrators, but even the US Constitution.
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES INSIDER INFLUENCE OVER MIT'S TENURE-REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia's involvement in the selection of Sabatini's tenure-review committee
On 27 September 2021, Kristin Knouse exchanged messages with Izabella Pena following a conversation with @MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia.
The court-disclosed messages reveal Kristin Knouse telling Izabella Pena:
🔴 “Sangeeta just called”
🔴 “they even asked for insight into who to put on the committee”
🔴 “AND she said she will go to Rafael Reif’s office and protest the decision if and when needed.”
Pena responded:
“At least they are asking her insight”
Knouse replied:
“Exactly”
“This is good”
⚠️ The evidence exposes a troubling channel of insider influence surrounding MIT's tenure-review process.
These contemporaneous communications document that Knouse understood Bhatia to have been consulted about the committee's composition and to be prepared to challenge its eventual decision directly with MIT President Rafael Reif.
Rather than an independent review insulated from interested parties, the messages reveal access to the committee-selection process by an academic aligned with the complainant, raising serious concerns about institutional impartiality and conflicts of interest.
This disclosure adds another significant piece to the growing documentary record surrounding the institutional handling of Professor @DMSabatini's case.
📑 REVIEW THW ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
Well Done retweeted
The loss extended far beyond Dr. Sabatini. The whole country suffers when institutions entrusted with advancing knowledge reward the behavior of Sangeeta Bhatia.
When I first became a tenure-track professor, I was quickly disillusioned by how little interest so many of my colleagues seemed to have in science. It shocked me because it made no sense. My love of science was why I took the job. I accepted much less pay and much longer hours because it gave me the chance to devote myself to something I loved.
Many colleagues seemed far more interested in chasing prestige and stature within the university. I had assumed that people who made those sacrifices shared my priorities. Finding out otherwise was a profound disappointment.
You can see those priorities on display in Sangeeta Bhatia’s messages. In the exchanges, you can see celebration of David’s destruction and no concern for the science and knowledge being lost. He was a scientist with far greater scientific accomplishments than hers. Yet, Bhatia was someone directing a cancer research center at MIT and treated as an authority on advancing cancer research.
Dr. Sabatini’s work laid the foundations for a major field of drug development, including cancer therapies. Dismantling his laboratory meant interrupting the work of someone whose discoveries had already opened enormous scientific and therapeutic possibilities. None of that concern is visible in these exchanges.
This is what happens when universities reward bureaucratic hacks who promote their personal causes, work their way into leadership, and use institutional authority to pursue those causes while the science suffers. Her titles remain, even as the institution decays.
People involved in removing Dr. Sabatini retained their positions of stature or advanced. His laboratory was dismantled. Years of work were interrupted, scientific were lost, the careers of the poeple he was mentoring were disrupted and the people celebrating kept their authority.
Meanwhile, MIT puts on a show claiming merit is its main focus while the place rots behind the veneer of excellence it displays to the public.
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES EXPLOSIVE PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEALING COORDINATION BETWEEN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND MIT PROFESSOR SANGEETA BHATIA IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes how Knouse and Bhatia privately celebrated Sabatini’s removal, discussed the potential destruction of his professional career, and anticipated the revocation of his @MIT tenure.
An 80-message exchange between Kristin Knouse and MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia, dated August 20–21, 2021, reveals their private reactions immediately following Whitehead Institute and HHMI's severance of ties with Professor @DMSabatini.
The communications contain statements that deserve serious public examination.
🔴 1. “YOU DID IT” — “AND HE’S OUT.”
On August 20, 2021, Bhatia congratulated Knouse:
🔴 “YOU DID IT. You crossed the finish line. It's out in the open. And you're not out in the open. And you're on the faculty. And he's out.”
Knouse responded:
🔴 “You connecting me to Nancy [Hopkins]was the turning point. I will never forget that walk in Lexington.”
🔴 2. “THIS WAS THE OUTCOME I DREAMED OF.”
The following morning, as news coverage spread, Knouse discussed the possibility of Sabatini losing his MIT tenure:
🔴 “Hard to imagine MIT will be left with any choice other than to revoke tenure.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “You're right about tenure”
She subsequently wrote:
🔴 “This was the outcome I dreamed of but NEVER certain I would get it.”
Knouse also described her assessment of Whitehead's handling of the matter:
🔴 “And as skeptical as I was of Whitehead's end game, in the end I think the overall process was perfectly executed.”
Bhatia expressed her approval of Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann:
🔴 “I'm proud of Ruth [Lehmann]”
These exchanges occurred months before MIT's April 2022 tenure-revocation recommendation.
🔴 3. THE PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES — BEYOND WHITEHEAD.
The participants also discussed Sabatini's corporate affiliations and prospects for future employment.
Knouse wrote:
🔴 “I know of one company already speaking with lawyers to remove him on grounds of morality clause.”
She subsequently stated:
🔴 “Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after the past 24 hours ...”
These were not merely discussions about an institutional investigation. They extended to the potential consequences for Sabatini's career, tenure, corporate affiliations, and future livelihood.
🔴 4. THE DIVERSITY SURVEY AND PROTECTION FROM PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION.
In another particularly consequential exchange, Bhatia wrote:
🔴 “Also the dei survey and subsequent investigation really protects you, which I love. There is not even a scent of whistleblower in all the press.”
This statement takes on particular significance alongside the previously disclosed communications in which Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration (📑 see the original court evidence in the first comment below).
🔴 5. “WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE” — CELEBRATING AS THE NEWS SPREAD.
Perhaps the most striking exchange appears on KK011419.
On August 21, 2021, Knouse declared:
🔴 “I KNOW! Young people took down a relatively young king. Progress, progress, progress.”
Knouse also wrote:
🔴 “Two other women who came forward and I drank champagne while watching the Tweets and articles roll in last night. It felt like campaign headquarters after an election victory. Really special.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “That's awesome.”
These exchanges reinforce the serious concerns about coordination and conflicts of interest raised by our previous disclosures. Their significance must be assessed alongside the full documentary record and the subsequent jury verdict.
The scientific community deserves full accountability for any misconduct established by the evidence, including the roles of individuals who participated in or improperly influenced the institutional processes that subjected Professor Sabatini to a devastating ordeal and profoundly damaged his career.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
Well Done retweeted
Absolutely disgusting behavior from these academics.
It’s staggering to me that these individuals would ever be gainfully employed in academia after these disclosures.
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES EXPLOSIVE PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEALING COORDINATION BETWEEN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND MIT PROFESSOR SANGEETA BHATIA IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes how Knouse and Bhatia privately celebrated Sabatini’s removal, discussed the potential destruction of his professional career, and anticipated the revocation of his @MIT tenure.
An 80-message exchange between Kristin Knouse and MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia, dated August 20–21, 2021, reveals their private reactions immediately following Whitehead Institute and HHMI's severance of ties with Professor @DMSabatini.
The communications contain statements that deserve serious public examination.
🔴 1. “YOU DID IT” — “AND HE’S OUT.”
On August 20, 2021, Bhatia congratulated Knouse:
🔴 “YOU DID IT. You crossed the finish line. It's out in the open. And you're not out in the open. And you're on the faculty. And he's out.”
Knouse responded:
🔴 “You connecting me to Nancy [Hopkins]was the turning point. I will never forget that walk in Lexington.”
🔴 2. “THIS WAS THE OUTCOME I DREAMED OF.”
The following morning, as news coverage spread, Knouse discussed the possibility of Sabatini losing his MIT tenure:
🔴 “Hard to imagine MIT will be left with any choice other than to revoke tenure.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “You're right about tenure”
She subsequently wrote:
🔴 “This was the outcome I dreamed of but NEVER certain I would get it.”
Knouse also described her assessment of Whitehead's handling of the matter:
🔴 “And as skeptical as I was of Whitehead's end game, in the end I think the overall process was perfectly executed.”
Bhatia expressed her approval of Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann:
🔴 “I'm proud of Ruth [Lehmann]”
These exchanges occurred months before MIT's April 2022 tenure-revocation recommendation.
🔴 3. THE PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES — BEYOND WHITEHEAD.
The participants also discussed Sabatini's corporate affiliations and prospects for future employment.
Knouse wrote:
🔴 “I know of one company already speaking with lawyers to remove him on grounds of morality clause.”
She subsequently stated:
🔴 “Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after the past 24 hours ...”
These were not merely discussions about an institutional investigation. They extended to the potential consequences for Sabatini's career, tenure, corporate affiliations, and future livelihood.
🔴 4. THE DIVERSITY SURVEY AND PROTECTION FROM PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION.
In another particularly consequential exchange, Bhatia wrote:
🔴 “Also the dei survey and subsequent investigation really protects you, which I love. There is not even a scent of whistleblower in all the press.”
This statement takes on particular significance alongside the previously disclosed communications in which Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration (📑 see the original court evidence in the first comment below).
🔴 5. “WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE” — CELEBRATING AS THE NEWS SPREAD.
Perhaps the most striking exchange appears on KK011419.
On August 21, 2021, Knouse declared:
🔴 “I KNOW! Young people took down a relatively young king. Progress, progress, progress.”
Knouse also wrote:
🔴 “Two other women who came forward and I drank champagne while watching the Tweets and articles roll in last night. It felt like campaign headquarters after an election victory. Really special.”
Bhatia responded:
🔴 “That's awesome.”
These exchanges reinforce the serious concerns about coordination and conflicts of interest raised by our previous disclosures. Their significance must be assessed alongside the full documentary record and the subsequent jury verdict.
The scientific community deserves full accountability for any misconduct established by the evidence, including the roles of individuals who participated in or improperly influenced the institutional processes that subjected Professor Sabatini to a devastating ordeal and profoundly damaged his career.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
Well Done retweeted
Dubai’s wealthy are spending AED 50,000 to slow ageing, but does it work?
From AI diagnostics to biological-age testing, Dubai’s wealthy residents are paying thousands to stay healthier for longer. But what does the science actually support?
arabianbusiness.com/business…
Well Done retweeted
an organization ppl think is for the underdog is deeply rotten
BREAKING: Switzerland suspends funding to Doctors Without Borders after it failed to report that its staff exploited refugee women and girls for sex—in exchange for aid, jobs and money. Previously, 🇨🇭 called MSF “a source of best practice and inspiration.” swissinfo.ch/eng/internation…
Well Done retweeted
α‐synuclein pathology drives region‐specific tau deposition: Alzheimer's & Dementia - α-synuclein + show⬆️tau deposition in basal ganglia (BG),insula,medial temporal lobe (MTL).⬆️tau burden in these regions correlated with⬆️severe symptoms,⬇️reaction times alz-journals.onlinelibrary.w…
