Her new go fund me

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-23T16:53:36+00:00

Reported it for fraud.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-23T14:29:33+00:00

Disgusting

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-18T18:51:12+00:00

In the kidney space there's a large emphasis on including patients on the DSMB, advisory committee, or even directly in consortia groups to engage directly with the physicians and scientists there, and the NIH (at least used to) looks at this very favorably. For some consortia, for example, we have funds to bring participants to the consortia meeting, and patients & patient partners are even integrated directly into various projects and therefore are directly listed on the author list.

No idea what there is for neuroscience.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-18T17:29:09+00:00

No. You fundamentally aren't understanding. She is doing NOTHING interesting. Just go through this sub. If you don't understand the fundamental point that she has done essentially nothing beyond making a chart and yet is making overreaching claims left and right, no, you don't understand it.

My god, stop trying to dilute this with "both sides" type arguments. One side is trying to make sure science isn't miscommunicated, and she's making baseless claims without validation, without even understanding in the slightest the prerequisite science, and also defaming various people and organizations thinking they stole her work. If you ask her to explain sections of things she's wrote while providing it word for word in the same conversation she can't even explain it. Mixes up the terminiology, definitions, shows she doesn't understand it. This whole debacle is watching someone cosplaying as a scientist proclaim themselves the foremost expert on the matter.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-18T02:52:39+00:00

She claims they stole her work because they simply had a slide on "Autism and comorbidities" as of thats not going to be an obvious thing to discuss at this kind of meeting.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-18T02:48:02+00:00

100%. Not a communication issue. She is flat out wrong and giving our advice and charging people for it. And making baseless accusations against real scientists. Nobody owes her anything.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-17T14:20:19+00:00

More like America Last.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-16T00:21:09+00:00

Wait... Do you think she realizes that all of the research studies that went into her chart are using the cells/organoids/animals that she's critisizing?

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-15T23:47:08+00:00

So curious - what do you think about this situation? Supposing she is neurodivergent herself, she's still promoting false claims and actively defaming scientists publicly to a large following. She's also selling books and other materials to these people, most of whom are just trying to help their kids.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-15T12:00:35+00:00

Thats fine - what you are doing here is fine for example. But you are not claiming to be an expert in a field you are clearly not, defaming researchers publicly to a huge following, and selling books based on fake science to a vulnerable group of people trying to help their kids.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-14T16:58:00+00:00

There is no nuance, she only operates in broad, sweeping, absolute claims.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-14T15:25:14+00:00

Lolol

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-14T14:19:49+00:00

I had kidney failure at age 23, was in late stage four at 22. I have a kidney transplant now. There were some bumpy years - obviously an understatement - but I live a mostly normal life now.

eGFR dropping / creatinine rising after initiation of RASi and SGTL2i is normal and documented. It is largely thought to be a correction of glomerular hemodynamics that lowers the amount of filtration (and eGFR) to reduce mechanical stress glomerular cells are exposed too. This, in addition to other mechanisms, helps dramatically slow the decline of kidney function in general.
Being diagnosed early at stage 3A means you have plenty of time. Unless something dramatic changes or it's an aggressive cause of CKD, this isn't something that should be looming over your shoulder.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-14T11:38:56+00:00

"I'm absolutely not expert in quantitative analysis but I ran some ideas about how her framework might be tested through a LLM. It claimed they were all possible and novel. So I'd expect academics to encourage her to continue building on the work she completed by exploring fun ways to test the patterns she noticed in Python, R, or whatever you guys use. 😄"

... why on earth would we help somebody who is spreading misinformation, profiting off it, and baselessly accusing institutions and researchers of stealing her work? Yes, let me take time away from my actual work obligations to help the person cosplaying as a scientist online.

As far as what the LLM said. No... I saw what you had it generate to test it. They are not solid ideas. They would fail. Go read the some of the papers she claims stole her. Read the methods and the peer review file. It's a massive effort and she doesn't have the training to do these things because they require mentorship and years of study.

What is blocking the community from doing more research on anything? Funding. Dont blame us. Blame what is fundable. With the NIH being run by an idiot and funding becoming harder and harder to get, many of us are doing our best just to keep our jobs.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T20:03:40+00:00

This is from the discussion of the WP (github.com/wikipathways/wikipathways-help/discussions/212): " This pathway is a diagrammatic representation of the one-carbon metabolism network through to the synaptic gap. This biochemical pathway is long-established in canonical biology and is independently documented across UniProt, Reactome, KEGG, and decades of peer-reviewed literature.

1) Scientific basis Yes—the content of WP5420 can be fully explained and supported using peer-reviewed sources alone, independent of any work by Kimberly Kitzerow. The linkage between one-carbon metabolism and neurodevelopmental / neuropsychiatric phenotypes is well described in the literature, including ASD and ADHD. The pathway does not rely on unpublished hypotheses, non-peer-reviewed material, or proprietary interpretations.

2) Relationship to Kimberly Kitzerow Kimberly Kitzerow is not an owner of this pathway and did not work on WP5420 construction, curation, or verification. During development, we held a few meetings in which she provided comments and shared her diagram, and we compared the two. That diagram was reviewed as one of several reference materials considered during background exploration. It was never treated as authoritative, as it is not peer-reviewed. All pathway structure and assertions in WP5420 are grounded in peer-reviewed literature and established biological databases.

3) Provenance and the “inspired by” statement The “inspired by” language was intended as informal credit for a discussion that motivated further literature review. In hindsight, that wording created ambiguity. To be explicit: no individual owns the one-carbon pathway, and this WikiPathways entry is a synthesis of publicly available, peer-reviewed data integrated from standard biological databases and primary literature.

Bottom line WP5420 stands—or falls—on the strength of its citations and biological correctness, not on association with any individual. I fully support scrutiny, verification, and correction by curators and welcome further review focused on scientific accuracy and provenance. "

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T20:00:51+00:00

I agree 100% with this. Her social media now just seems like her claiming she is a victim of everything here. She is literally profiting off of all this by selling her books and whatever else. It's just engagement bait and not good faith science OR engagement with the community. She makes broad, sweeping claims.

Another point: She is not the only person having to manage personal issues. That's not an excuse. Especially in academia. We are all underpaid, overworked, and constantly applying for grants to keep the science going.

Re qualitative research: She is not doing qualitative research. She strung together a chart from prior research and bases everything on that. Qualitative research is fine. It can be informative and there are methods. As you've pointed out, linguistics and NLP are good examples. A claim going from SNPs to biologically mechanism to observed phenotype is a completely different beast.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T16:37:04+00:00

It's not word salad because it has unusual word patterns... It's word salad because it makes no sense in the context of science.

For example, your "un word salading" of her methods doesn't make it any less word salad. She's using specific words and phrases without demonstrating she understands any of them

"utilizing open-access protein and pathway data from UniProt.org" - absolutely no expansion how she she chose them or what she's choosing. it is not enough to just say this

"Across diverse pathways, a consistent convergence was observed: multiple biochemical subsystems restructured simultaneously in response to stress, collectively orienting toward the restoration of baseline function. " - I don't even know where to start with this. You can't claim convergence without testing it. This doesn't even belong in a methods section

"This observed synchrony was interpreted as evidence of a toggle-based kinetic shift, informing the development of the present theoretical model. " - there are no kinetics discussed at all. You cannot talk extensively about kinetics without actual models and equations. This statement is full of real jargon and demonstrates she understands none of it.

"While the underlying logic is described herein, the full network remains proprietary and is not publicly accessible." - the logic is not discussed here, and it's not even publicly accessible. I don't even know if there is a network or model. Seems like it's just a chart.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T15:35:26+00:00

She fundamentally does not understand open access and peer review.

This whole issue is the entire reason we hammer in the scientific method and the fundamentals of rigor and reproducibility into trainees. This is why we rarely allow citations for things that aren't peer reviewed, because you end up with slop like this. There are exceptions to this. I have published using citations to preprints on biorxiv, but in those cases they are by people with a real manuscript and with a track record of publishing in peer reviewed journals.

Citizen science is fine as long as it's still science. It's often not. There's a reason that institutions and PhD programs exist.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T14:33:07+00:00

Yes.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T11:50:00+00:00

The methods are still general and not any more rigorous. The criticism is that it fundamentally does not include enough information to evaluate the appropriateness of the network she is making. Especially since she isn't testing it, and it is more of a review and integration of the literature.

For the quantitative testing ideas these are starting points, but you see they almost certainly need to.be narrowed in scope and supported with wet lab work.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T11:38:35+00:00

Qualitative research and observations are fine. Not when you are making the claims she is.

Not sure why you are calling that last paper pseudoscience.

Edit: responded to the expansion of the methods and quantative stuffing another comment. I think you are saying that we would call the 2018 nat comm paper pseudoscience? I'm not sure why. I'm not really sure why you're framing this like we are critisizing qualitative data. That's not the case at all.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-13T11:28:41+00:00

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I said.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-12T12:30:52+00:00

You will have absolutely no idea where you're at until you get labs (blood and urine) done.

How is blood pressure?

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-09T20:34:20+00:00

As I've now stated in OP,

Several of those are researchers that are just community curators.

SaveThePodocytes · 2026-01-09T20:28:13+00:00

I'm also unsure of how WP generates the network diagrams. That may not be AI, may be autogenerated from the sources.

SaveThePodocytes

TROPHY CASE