Yesterday, I wrote about what can only be described as an academic travesty. What riled me up sufficiently to lay a heapin’ helpin’ of not-so-Respectful Insolence on a graduate student named Judy Wilyman, her PhD thesis advisor Brian Martin, and the University of Wollongong was the fact that Wilyman is an antivaccine loon and the University of Wollongong saw fit to bestow a PhD on her for a thesis riddled with antivaccine tropes and pseudoscience. As I pointed out at the time, the University of Wollongong deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt for allowing this travesty to come to pass, but what about Brian Martin? After all, it is the thesis advisor who bears the most responsibility for making sure that the work done by a PhD candidate is academically rigorous (which Wilyman’s work was not). Sure, there’s a thesis committee to whom PhD candidates periodically present their work and who are supposed to give constructive criticism and advice and make sure the candidate’s work is up to snuff.

I can’t bring myself (yet) to go through the entire thesis. It is, after all, 390 pages long, which means I might never find the time to read it all. I don’t know that I really need to, anyway, if what I’ve read thus far is any indication. Truly the burning antivaccine stupid is black hole density, sucking all science and knowledge into its event horizon, never to be seen again. Brian Martin, however, has defended Wilyman’s thesis and her against attacks. I was curious what defense anyone could come up with to justify such a load of pseudoscientific tripe, rife with easily refutable downright incorrect information. So when I read Brian Martin’s defense of this whole fiasco, entitled Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student, I ended up thinking that this topic deserved a followup post addressing his justifications.

Sadly, the very first paragraph of Martin’s article lets the reader know where he’s coming from, and where he’s coming from is not from anywhere resembling science. He starts out noting that “Judy’s thesis is long and detailed.” Well, yes, I’ll give it that, but if the details are nearly all wrong, length is not a virtue. I like to think that I get away with my penchant for logorrhea because my prose is (usually) entertaining and engaging and because I get the facts and science right. So, although I sometimes get complaints about the length of my posts, most of the time no one minds. In contrast, Wilyman’s “long and detailed” thesis is indeed very detailed, but the vast majority of details are either factually incorrect or distorted.

Martin thus begins:

It makes four main critical points in relation to Australian government vaccination policy. First, deaths from infectious diseases had dramatically declined in Australia before the mass introduction of most vaccines, suggesting that vaccination is not the only factor in controlling these diseases.

Antivaccine trope: Vaccines didn’t save us, one of the more intellectually dishonest of some very intellectually dishonest antivaccine tropes.

Second, Australian vaccination policies were adopted from a one-size-fits-all set of international recommendations, without consideration of the special ecological conditions in Australia, for example the levels of sanitation and nutrition, and the incidence and severity of diseases.

Antivaccine trope: The “sanitation” gambit. The easiest way to refute this trope is to point out that polio and measles ran rampant in the US in the 1950s, even though sanitation was perfectly fine and children were well nourished. It wasn’t until vaccines for these diseases were developed that the incidence plummeted. Also, sanitation doesn’t do much good against diseases whose spread is primarily through the air, like the measles.

Two down. What’s next? Oh, goody:

Third, nearly all research on vaccination is carried out or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in selling vaccines; the conflicts of interest involved in vaccine research can lead to bias in the research design and conclusions drawn.

Pharma shill gambit, reporting for duty, sir!


Fourth, there are important areas of research relevant to vaccination policy that have not been pursued, but should have been; a plausible reason for this “undone science” is that the findings might turn out to be unwelcome to vaccination promoters.

Ah, yes. The “inconvenient facts ‘they’ don’t want you to discover” trope. What, pray tell, might these “inconvenient” facts be? That vaccines cause autism, perhaps? Given Martin’s defense of Andrew Wakefield and his characterization of criticism of him as “suppression of vaccination dissent” one has to wonder how much Martin buys into antivaccine pseudoscience. Quite a lot, I suspect.

Here’s the problem. All Martin sees when it comes to antivaccine activists is “dissent.” I suppose such views do represent “dissent” of a sort, but they sure don’t represent well-informed dissent based on facts, logic, and science. Unfortunately, Martin doesn’t seem to distinguish between dissent based on facts, science, and logic and dissent based on pseudoscience and misinformation. Wakefield’s “dissent” was clearly based on the latter. So is Wilyman’s “dissent.” Martin, however, doesn’t seem to recognize this. It’s postmodernism at its worst. There are no “narratives” that are closer to the truth than others. If you believe that, then “telling both sides” becomes paramount and any attempt to censor or shut down pseudoscience is viewed not as a proper enforcement of scientific standards, but an attempt to crush “dissent.” That’s the entire worldview of Brian Martin in a nutshell. Indeed, only a couple of months ago, Martin referred to criticism of Wilyman as the “mobbing of a PhD student“:

Mobbing, or collective bullying, usually develops for a reason, though sometimes it is difficult to identify the original trigger. In Judy’s case, the reason is obvious enough. She debates vaccination in public forums, and there is a group of campaigners who want to silence any public questioning of the official government vaccination policy.

Yep. Martin has played the “bully” card. It’s a favorite card of antivaccinationists. Any criticism of rank pseudoscience is portrayed as “bullying” rather than reasonable criticism.

Speaking of reasonable criticism, let’s look at what Martin considers unreasonable criticism. Basically, he identifies what he considers to be illegitimate attacks thusly:

When people criticise a research student’s work, it is worth checking for tell-tale signs indicating when these are not genuine concerns about quality and probity but instead part of a campaign to denigrate viewpoints they oppose.

  1. They attack the person, not just their work.
  2. They concentrate on alleged flaws in the work, focusing on small details and ignoring the central points.
  3. They make no comparisons with other students or theses or with standard practice, but rather make criticisms in isolation or according to their own assumed standards.
  4. They assume that findings contrary to what they believe is correct must be wrong or dangerous or both.

The attacks on Judy’s research exhibit every one of these signs. Her opponents attack her as a person, repeatedly express outrage over certain statements she has made while ignoring the central themes in her work, make no reference to academic freedom or standard practice in university procedures, and simply assume that she must be wrong.

This is such incredible nonsense, not to mention rank hypocrisy. After all, how often have I documented how antivaccine warriors attack the person because they can’t successfully challenge the science? I myself have been at the receiving end of such attacks, most prominently five years ago, when Jake Crosby falsely insinuated that I had undisclosed conflicts of interest, and as a result ai endured a campaign on the part of antivaccine activists to get me fired from my job. It didn’t work (fortunately), but it was a quintessential example of how cranks attack the person and not the science. They can’t attack the science because they don’t have it on their side.

As for the second claim, Martin appears utterly clueless. It is the central points of Wilyman’s thesis that are being criticized—and quite rightly so—based on facts, science, and logic. Similarly, it’s not bias that leads those of us who defend vaccines to conclude that attacks on vaccination like those made by Wilyman are wrong or dangerous or both. They are wrong and dangerous, and we can demonstrate that. We have demonstrated that time and time again.

None of this stops Martin from asserting:

The attacks on Judy Wilyman and her PhD research should be understood as part of a campaign to denigrate and discourage anyone who dares to make public criticisms of standard vaccination policy.

Uh, no. The criticism of Judy Wilyman and her PhD “research” (and I do use the term loosely) derives from her repetition of antivaccine tropes and conspiracy theories. Really, it is just that simple. Sadly, Brian Martin is utterly clueless when it comes to understanding this. If you doubt my assessment, just look at how Martin characterizes criticism of Andrew Wakefield:

Unlike most of his peers, Wakefield has been subject to a degradation ceremony, a ritualistic denunciation casting him out of the company of honest researchers (Thérèse and Martin, 2010). By degrading Wakefield’s reputation, vaccination is symbolically vindicated and the credibility of any criticism undermined. Supporters of vaccination have repeatedly used the example of Wakefield to suggest that criticism of vaccination is misguided (e.g., Grant, 2011: 105-124; Offit, 2010). The logic of using Wakefield’s ignominy as an argument in defense of vaccination is not replicated in the case of a single biomedical scientist who supports standard views. Considering that bias and conflict of interest are endemic to pharmaceutical-company-sponsored research, it is striking that no supporter of orthodoxy concludes that this discredits support for pharmaceutical drugs generally. (Some critics draw this conclusion.)

Gee, I can’t help but thinking, Martin says this as though it were a bad thing.

Here’s the problem. Wakefield really is a scientific fraud. Brian Deer has extensively documented this conclusion. Wakefield does have real ignominy. He deserves it. It isn’t a bad thing to point this out, either.

Basically, Martin has a history of being sympathetic to medical cranks. He views crank views as “medical dissent.” Technically, I suppose they are, but not in a good way and certainly not in a useful way. Unfortunately, Brian Martin doesn’t recognize these differences. To him all “dissent” is potentially valid, no matter how pseudoscientific it is. That’s how Judy Wilyman got her PhD.


  1. #1 herr doktor bimler
    January 17, 2016

    I read the commentary on that Conversation piece at the time and noticed how evasive Brian Martin’s responses to criticism were. It is quite a good illustration of the way he operates.

    Oh my, that article is fraudulent on multiple levels… not just the tergiversation between “here is an alternative, discredited, counter-factual theory where research money should have been spent” and “Oh noes, we’re not actually advocating for that alternative theory”.
    The authors talk about bio-accumulation of the pesticide 1080 (“Furthermore, because devils, as carnivores, are at the top of the food chain, toxic chemicals in the environment are concentrated in their diet.”). If only there were some system of on-line indexing of information, which would have allowed them to check whether 1080 actually bioaccumulates!

  2. #2 herr doktor bimler
    January 17, 2016

    As for “more viscous”
    I knew I should have wiped the glue off my face.

  3. #3 Deb
    January 17, 2016

    The argument of whether scientists treat non-conforming theses differently is disingenuous. It may be completely true, and indicate unfairness in the system, but the fact remains that Wileyman’s thesis is based on factual errors and misinformation.

    It’s like complaining that while the cop was writing your ticket for speeding, several other drivers sped past. Is it fair? No, and it may mean a review is needed of how speeding is detected and treated. But it doesn’t mean you should get off from the ticket – you were still speeding.

    It almost appears that Martin is conducting an experiment using his grad students as guinea pigs, to see how much he can force institutions to accept by framing it as dissent.

  4. #4 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    @ Magpie.” Is there a level of utter incompetence in a PhD effort that would, in your mind, be grounds for failure?”

    In Jenny Graves’ example you can find this degree of utter incompetence. But no one is asking here for retraction of the PhD because most eutherian people 😉 don’t give a damn about Tasmanian devil.
    And this degree of incompetence is not far from ignoring either the basics of breast oncology or elementary logic.

  5. #5 Magpie
    January 18, 2016

    @Daniel Corcos – This PhD ignores basics of virology in a very similar way to the Devil paper’s ignorance of oncology. It’s entirely possible some folk are particularly energised about the vaccine paper, though, as this paper has a real chance of convincing some people not to immunise, and there is a very good chance that this will, eventually, lead to one or more deaths.

    It is not going to far to say that this paper is so bad, children are likely to die. There is a family in the future who will go through and awful tragedy because of this embarrassment of a paper.

    So yeah, I can kinda see how people might get upset. Can you not? Do you not think that’s justified?

    No-one was ever going to change their practices based on the Devil results, because people dealing with Devils know enough to ignore it. But immunisation is a very different story.

  6. #6 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    If you read carefully, my last sentence was about BREAST oncology. And it could be harmful to suggest that early detection of breast cancer does not prevent metastasis.
    So what could be more harmful, an obscure PhD thesis without any peer reviewed paper, or a paper in NEJM?

  7. #7 Narad
    January 18, 2016

    Start at this site (via PZ at Pharyngula).

    The recursivity of this comment is priceless:

    “A FOI request for the names of the two ‘unchallengable assessors’ has been submitted.”

    I do idly wonder, though, whether the smallpox angle is being read correctly or whether Wilyman has a uniquely garbled version, as the usual routine follows a script (PDF).

  8. #8 Narad
    January 18, 2016

    The argument of whether scientists treat non-conforming theses differently is disingenuous. It may be completely true….

    I think a meaningful definition of “non-conforming” comes first. Martin seems to be dully trying to turn Justice Potter Stewart’s remark that “I know it when I see it” into an isomorphism ouroboros.

  9. #9 Helianthus
    January 18, 2016

    @ Sarah A #181

    No worries.
    If anything, I am offended by Daniel Corcos’ non-answers*.
    There are issues with academia communities in France – which community hasn’t? We occasionally try to implement some rules to make it better, with mixed results.
    I would have been interested in some precise examples, but if all we got are fuzzy generalities and the old hard sciences/soft sciences divide…

  10. #10 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    @ Helianthus
    OK, if you take it like that.
    I have seen many situations where results were really hard to believe, were not really supported by data, were part of a thesis and eventually published but never confirmed. In one of the cases, a paper by another team showed that the main finding was not occurring in the original cell line where it was reported to occur. The paper has not been retracted.
    Above, I have shown that unlikely conclusions due to flawed reasoning could be attacked or supported depending on the argument from authority. Do you need more?
    I am not here with a pseudo. If you want to know more, give me your real name and your e-mail address. So if you feel offended, it will be a pleasure for me to give you the answers you request.

  11. #11 Dangerous Bacon
    January 18, 2016

    So what’s preventing Daniel Corcos from revealing here the title and source of the thesis that supposedly had “hard to believe” results, which he intimates was accepted because it appealed to the Power Elites? And are we supposed to conclude on his say-so that it should have been retracted because someone else didn’t confirm part of the findings?

    “Above, I have shown that unlikely conclusions due to flawed reasoning could be attacked or supported depending on the argument from authority. Do you need more?”

    Yeah, actual evidence.

  12. #12 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    Helianthus has not answered. Brave behind a pseudonym.
    Same for you, Dangerous Bacon, indicate your e-mail address and you will get my precise answers.
    Actual evidence, this is what I have presented at post #183, #205, #207.
    Dangerous (if I may call you by your first name), for my information, do you have a PhD?

  13. #13 Dangerous Bacon
    January 18, 2016

    None of those posts contain any evidence whatsoever.

    Refusing to provide it suggests that it doesn’t exist, or that you are afraid of speaking Truth to Power.

    Not very flattering in either case.

  14. #14 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    Dangerous, tell me the Truth. Do you have a PhD? Are you Dangerous?

  15. #15 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 18, 2016

    @Daniel Corcos, what you have presented in your comments is NOT evidence, despite you believing that it is.
    To repeat my comment at #182:
    As Sarah A pointed out, “the study Orac discussed showing that earlier surgery led to better prognosis was restricted to non-metastatic cancer”. The other part was “Early detection of Breast cancer does not prevent metastasis”. You have not found an example of flawed reasoning. You have simply misunderstood and instead of asking for clarification, you have insisted that your interpretation of things is correct.

  16. #16 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    @ Julian Frost
    My post # 183 has answered the question. If you make the effort to read it and understand it, you’ll see it. If there is still something, please tell me.

  17. #17 Not a Troll
    January 18, 2016

    HDB #203

    Ha! You got me there. I find myself unable to keep track of spellcheck while also fighting the jumping cursor.

    No need to worry about AI killing me in the future. The current technology is doing a well enough job of gas lighting me now.

  18. #18 Daniel Corcos
    January 18, 2016

    @ Julian Frost
    I am trying to help you. Consider the following sentences:
    A) Early detection leads to early surgery
    B) Early surgery prevents death
    C) Death by breast cancer is due to metastasis
    D) Early detection does not prevent metastasis
    One of the sentences above cannot be true. Do you agree?
    Then try to find the wrong sentence.

  19. #19 has
    in a maze of twisty passages, all alike
    January 18, 2016

    Ignoring Mr Corcos’ ridiculously tedious derail for a moment…

    It’s pretty clear that Martin, Wilyman, and AVN are all fellow travellers, and it looks like Martin is an experienced enabler of academic bullshittery, so I’m surprised there hasn’t been much consideration of a possible conspiracy between Martin and Wilyman in deliberate service of their common antivax agenda.

    I find it very hard to believe that an attention seeking crank like Wilyman would’ve diverted a significant chunk of her misguided life into obtaining those impressive-looking “PhD” letters without having first secured a solid up-front guarantee of them being awarded for blatant incompetence and lies. So I wonder just how long and how well she and Martin have had dealings, and whether this whole “Dr Wilyman PhD” gig was rigged right from the very start with the specific purpose of making her a more powerful warrior for the cause.

    It reminds me a bit of the Moonie church putting Jonathan Wells through a molecular biology PhD at Berkeley, just so he could more authoritatively attack the theory of evolution as the rubes love a liar with letters even more than a liar without. Except in Wells’s case the university was merely a patsy, not a perpetrator. Shame on UoW for its cowardice and negligence in defending the academic corruption within its walls.

    • #20 Orac
      January 18, 2016

      Indeed. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

      If Mr. Corcos has such a burning desire to discuss breast cancer, I suggest that he go back to the post about the study in question and do so freely. There, unlike the case here, his blathering will be on topic. He has derailed this comment thread off-topic long enough. I might even indulge him and explain how both studies could be correct, as it is clear that he lacks the imagination and understanding of different study designs to figure it out for himself. (One hint: The two papers do not look at the same patient population. The NEJM paper looks at incidence numbers for patients diagnosed with metastatic disease at first presentation; the surgery delay paper looks only at patients without detectable metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis who are candidates for surgery. These are not comparable populations. That’s the only hint I’ll give for now.) If Mr. Corcoros wishes to continue to beat this dead horse, he should go back to the discussion section of the post where it is on topic. I will no longer permit him to derail this discussion with off-topic discussions of breast cancer.

      I have to get back to work now.

  20. #21 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    January 18, 2016

    @Daniel Corcos:

    B) Early surgery prevents death

    Early surgery improves outcomes in NON-METASTATIC cancers. That is what Orac was saying, as you have repeatedly been told.

    C) Death by breast cancer is due to metastasis

    Not always and not necessarily.
    Both B) and C) are wrong. What prize did I win?

  21. #22 Orac
    January 18, 2016

    Please don’t encourage Corcos on this thread. I told him to move the conversation over to the appropriate post because he was beating a dead off-topic horse in this comment thread; it wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t apply that request to everyone. 🙂

  22. #23 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    January 18, 2016

    Sorry Orac. Understood.

  23. #24 Chris Preston
    January 18, 2016

    So I wonder just how long and how well she and Martin have had dealings, and whether this whole “Dr Wilyman PhD” gig was rigged right from the very start with the specific purpose of making her a more powerful warrior for the cause.

    Answer to the first part of the question is at least a decade, since she was a Masters student at UoW. She then started a Ph.D. at UoW, left for Murdoch University to be supervised by Peter Dingle. After a few years, she returned to UoW and finally submitted her thesis 8 years after starting it. Reading the thesis it is clear that those 8 years were not well spent.

    As for the second part, I really don’t know. If I were to guess, I would say that this is Wilyman’s initiative, rather than some sort of conspiracy, because that makes more sense.

  24. #25 Orac
    January 18, 2016

    Sorry Orac. Understood.

    No biggie.

  25. #26 titmouse
    January 19, 2016

    #209: “I think a meaningful definition of “non-conforming” comes first.”

    Do you think Brian Martin means, “non-conforming to the scientific evidence”? Or “non-conforming to the dominant view”?

    If the dominant view reflects the scientific evidence, there is no practical distinction between those two meanings.

    The answer to Brian Martin’s question must be “yes.” People are friendlier toward viewpoints consistent with the available evidence as compared to viewpoints at odds with the evidence.

  26. #27 alex fein
    January 19, 2016

    It’s such an inspiring word. It connotes great bravery in the face of corrupt power.

    The thing that shits me most deeply about Brian Martin’s delight in ‘dissent’ – at the expense of people’s lives – is that if he really wanted to do ‘dissent,’ he’d be far better off in places like China or Saudi Arabia.

    But if that’s all too scary for him, there’s still room here in Oz to ‘dissent.’

    There are actual, real, honest to God things that aren’t OK here. We could start with Indigenous incarceration rates. Or the need for urgent drugs law reform. How about cuts to funding for programmes helping women escape domestic violence?

    Nope. That would render ‘dissent’ as something focused on actually benefitting society, as opposed to a self aggrandising notion requiring you to piss off as many people as possible.

  27. […] (without, it should be noted, any seeming concern for academic rigor) was every bit as much of a stinking, slimy piece of BS as his student’s thesis was. I’ll give Martin credit, though. He doesn’t give […]

  28. #29 Steve
    January 23, 2016

    The main difference is that Sokal knew he was writing a parody. He said he did it in order to remind postmodernists that there is such a thing as objective reality. He famously invited anybody who considered the laws of physics to be social constructs to transgress those boundaries from his apartment window (he pointed out in his invitation that he lived on the twenty-first floor). You can see here also: thx

  29. #30 Sarah
    January 23, 2016

    Dodgy science aside, I thought defending your work against criticism was a part of academia/research?
    She’d best get used to it!

  30. #31 Mike
    January 25, 2016

    I thought I’d take a look at the chapter on HPV vaccines in Wilyman’s thesis as I have an interest in that area. I was immediately struck by her consistent use of “stated” wherever she agrees with a researcher, and “claimed” wherever she doesn’t agree. Then I came across this statement – Yet when I took a look at Gitsch et al. 1991 ( ) The incidence of cervical cancer is found to be four times greater in sex workers than in other women (Gitsch et al 1991). Yet the study by Gitsch et al did not find any statistically significant difference between the distribution of HPV subtypes in the lesions of sex workers and 227 other women. That is, there was no correlation between the incidence of high risk HPV subtypes and the incidence of cervical cancer in sex workers. This indicates that environmental factors must also play a role in the progression to disease.

  31. #32 Krebiozen
    January 25, 2016

    Is this a strange spamming incursion? The comments at #230 and #232 are odd partial echoes of previous comments with a link (that I refuse to follow) added.

  32. #33 Not a Troll
    January 25, 2016

    I saw the strangeness too but also a notice that comments were off while they performed an update. Perhaps that update fragged the existing comments???

  33. #34 Vibrador Feminino
    January 25, 2016

    Ignoring Mr Corcos’ ridiculously tedious derail for a moment…

    It’s pretty clear that Martin, Wilyman, and AVN are all fellow travellers, and it looks like Martin is an experienced enabler of academic bullshittery, so I’m surprised there hasn’t been much consideration of a possible conspiracy between Martin and Wilyman in deliberate service of their common antivax agenda.

    I find it very hard to believe that an attention seeking crank like Wilyman would’ve diverted a significant chunk of her misguided life into obtaining those impressive-looking “PhD” letters without having first secured a solid up-front guarantee of them being awarded for blatant incompetence and lies. So I wonder just how long and how well she and Martin have had dealings, and whether this whole “Dr Wilyman PhD” gig was rigged right from the very start with the specific purpose of making her a more powerful warrior for the cause.

  34. #35 Narad
    January 25, 2016

    Is this a strange spamming incursion?

    Straightforward Turkish-style blog spam.

  35. #36 Chris
    January 25, 2016

    I have not seen that kind of brain dead spamming by repeating a previous comment in ages. Though with the name I pictured a sword fight with weapons that could double as props for the play “Lysistrata.”

  36. #37 Chris
    January 25, 2016

    The one college production I saw of that play was a great homage to crafting with tubes from paper towel rolls.

  37. #38 herr doktor bimler
    January 25, 2016

    I will spare you a link to the Beardsley illustrations for Lysistrata.

  38. #39 Daniel Corcos
    January 26, 2016

    It is brain dead spamming but I have to acknowledge it is on topic.

  39. #40 Not a Troll
    January 26, 2016


    Er…Having seen your comment just after the corruption on my screen and the notice, I failed that projective test.

  40. […] defense by characterizing criticism of the university for granting Wilyman a PhD as the “suppression of dissent” again and […]

  41. #42 Ken McLeod
    New South Wales, Australia
    March 22, 2016

    See the latest on Ms Wilyman’s MSc – PhD farce, with links to previously unreleased documents. .

  42. #43 capnkrunch
    March 22, 2016

    Ken McLeod@243

    Has anyone submitted a similar complaint about her PhD thesis? It seemed like one of the reasons no action was taken was because the complaint was lodged so much later. I haven’t bothered reading past the abstract butbsurely her integrity has not improved. I can’t imagine there are no misattributions, manipulated data, etc in this one.

  43. #44 Daniel Corcos
    March 23, 2016

    There was no new data in this thesis in social sciences. If all the PhD theses where the data have been misinterpreted had to be retracted that would make a lot.

  44. #45 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    April 7, 2016

    This now has its own page on Wikipedia.
    Our host gets a mention under his real name.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.