If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Retraction Watch)   Not news: Scientist fakes data, gets it published in scientific journal. Fark: 172 times   (retractionwatch.wordpress.com) divider line 53
    More: Asinine, scientific journals, Justice Society, Tokio Hotel, research papers, Jiji Press, Watergate  
•       •       •

4088 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jul 2012 at 6:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 03:57:37 PM
On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....
 
2012-07-02 05:07:49 PM
Science, it work biatches.

Unfortunately, the science I'm talking about is psychology and the "works" part is "obfuscates bullshiat with proper presentation" or something similar.
 
2012-07-02 06:08:17 PM
CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.
 
2012-07-02 06:14:35 PM
Fujii the data?upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-02 06:57:22 PM
So we should ignore science and learn to embrace Jesus!
 
2012-07-02 07:01:21 PM
Clearly all science is now invalid.
 
2012-07-02 07:01:54 PM
BFD.

Like nobody, on Fark of all places, ever phoned it in during their career.

Dude just felt lazy for 18 years, it happens to everybody.
 
2012-07-02 07:13:04 PM

LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....


...why would an anesthesiologist submit a paper to the IPCC?
=Smidge=
/troll-b-gone
 
2012-07-02 07:13:57 PM

born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.


I have a similar story: A former masters student in my old lab faked his controls. Three of us picked up different parts of his project and we all had problems. We got together and repeated his masters work and proved his controls were faked and that his research generated lot of false positives. The worst part was our P.I. was going through tenure review at the time and we had to keep our mouths shut for a couple of months in case she went completely off the rails when she found out (which she did).

The guy should have had his degree pulled, but our P.I. refused to believe he faked the controls and bought his story that it was a "mistake". The guy was off doing his Ph.D. by this point and I had contacts in his new faculty, so I let it be known what happened. Somehow he flunked his comprehensive exams. Twice. He now works as a lab tech washing glassware and starting cultures, which is too bad really since it's a waste of his photoshop skills.....
 
2012-07-02 07:14:11 PM
As a scientist that has had two articles published in A&A (and more one than rejected by said journal), I'm getting a kick out...
 
2012-07-02 07:15:49 PM
Yoshiataka.

You'll never sneak your name past Fark Filter.
 
2012-07-02 07:16:49 PM

LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....


Engineers are not scientists. But they're awfully cute when they pretend to be.
 
2012-07-02 07:20:54 PM

Tyrosine: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

I have a similar story: A former masters student in my old lab faked his controls. Three of us picked up different parts of his project and we all had problems. We got together and repeated his masters work and proved his controls were faked and that his research generated lot of false positives. The worst part was our P.I. was going through tenure review at the time and we had to keep our mouths shut for a couple of months in case she went completely off the rails when she found out (which she did).

The guy should have had his degree pulled, but our P.I. refused to believe he faked the controls and bought his story that it was a "mistake". The guy was off doing his Ph.D. by this point and I had contacts in his new faculty, so I let it be known what happened. Somehow he flunked his comprehensive exams. Twice. He now works as a lab tech washing glassware and starting cultures, which is too bad really since it's a waste of his photoshop skills.....


It's nice to know some of these stories have happy endings. :)
 
2012-07-02 07:21:57 PM

LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....


over in one
 
2012-07-02 07:40:22 PM
This is how bad info gets passed around.
 
2012-07-02 07:45:38 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....

Engineers are not scientists. But they're awfully cute when they pretend to be.


Well, that was pretty random.
 
2012-07-02 07:46:13 PM
In a row?
 
2012-07-02 07:46:26 PM
HURRR THEREFORE ALL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS BUNK DURRR

HURRR DURRR
DERP DERP DERP
 
2012-07-02 07:53:25 PM
Fujii got caught. The rest of you will have to be more carefull.
 
2012-07-02 08:37:52 PM

born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.


...and then you immediately became a young-earth creationist ACC denier who preaches that vaccines cause autism.

...well, that's usually how these stories end up, at any rate.
 
2012-07-02 08:37:56 PM
This is how bad info gets passed around.

This is why the general public sometimes doubts legitimate science. These guys do much more damage than passing around bad data that will eventually be corrected, they undermine societies confidence in scientists.

/yes I know an anesthesiologist is not a scientist, but the general public does not.
 
2012-07-02 08:40:24 PM

NotARocketScientist: This is how bad info gets passed around.

This is why the general public sometimes doubts legitimate science. These guys do much more damage than passing around bad data that will eventually be corrected, they undermine societies confidence in scientists.

/yes I know an anesthesiologist is not a scientist, but the general public does not.


Reference... but fair point all the same.
 
2012-07-02 09:04:25 PM
were they all peer reviewed?
 
2012-07-02 09:06:04 PM
CSB: When I was working in a lab, I noticed that two papers from the same author had identical figures, some which were describing the same data and some different. I looked it over several times and showed it to my colleagues who agreed it wasn't right. So I brought it up to my adviser, and he said he'd take care of it. Several months later, the two papers were retracted and made it onto the Retraction Watch blog.

/I love my adviser. He's one of those rare "good guys" in the mess that is academia.
 
2012-07-02 09:08:51 PM
This is the kind of thing that happens a lot more often than you'd expect in academia (and probably a lot of other fields also), and is covered up the vast majority of the time due to external pressures from various parties afraid of losing money/credibility. I'd bet this guy was first caught a long time ago, possible multiple times, but it simply was never made public.

It's a damn shame, and really the people suffering most are the many academics doing the actual work required for the research.

/not disparaging academics as a group of course... the hard-working ones far outnumber the frauds.
 
2012-07-02 09:09:41 PM
Naturally this means that all science is fake and that all scientists lie, right?

NotARocketScientist: yes I know an anesthesiologist is not a scientist, but the general public does not.


Why is an anesthesiologist not a scientist? They do research which is subject to the scientific process the same as other medical researchers. Obviously his research was also subject to peer review which is why this is news. If this person is not a scientist, who do you consider to be a scientist? I'm not saying he is a good scientist, but an anesthesiologist researcher can definitely be considered a scientist.
 
2012-07-02 09:10:03 PM

anonwums: He's one of those rare "good guys" in the mess that is academia.


I don't think this is so rare. I think those who are bad guys are just so over the top they make themselves appear to be present in greater numbers than they actually are.
 
2012-07-02 09:13:09 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....

Engineers are not scientists. But they're awfully cute when they pretend to be.


The scientifically illiterate, such as yourself, shouldn't really make comments about things they don't actually understand
 
2012-07-02 09:16:42 PM
My personal favorite retracted paper from that site:

This article has been retracted at the request of the Publisher, as the article contains no scientific content and was accepted because of an administrative error. Apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.

The editor perhaps should have had his suspicions raised when he saw the email address of one of the authors was ohm­[nospam-﹫-backwards]resie­wdu­b*co­m.
 
2012-07-02 09:24:18 PM

fusillade762: So we should ignore science and learn to embrace Jesus!


And the job creators. Because they never lie. Never never never never never never.
 
2012-07-02 09:24:20 PM
The guy averages nine publications per year for 19 years? Good lord. I'd never be able to keep up with research in a field that dumps out papers that fast.
 
2012-07-02 09:38:27 PM

LordZorch: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: LordZorch: On a good day you can get it made part of the IPCC report.....

Engineers are not scientists. But they're awfully cute when they pretend to be.

The scientifically illiterate, such as yourself, shouldn't really make comments about things they don't actually understand


Hee hee
 
2012-07-02 10:14:57 PM

born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.


But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.
 
2012-07-02 10:26:21 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.


(-_-)
 
2012-07-02 10:28:52 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The guy averages nine publications per year for 19 years? Good lord. I'd never be able to keep up with research in a field that dumps out papers that fast.


Our group has published 140 papers in the last 10 years. We are above average but not the most.

/and I am in 4 of them
//none fake
 
2012-07-02 10:31:52 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.


Not really, no. The history of scientific misconduct is paved with a thousand-thousand stories from biological science. The stakes are so much higher because of the millions changing hands for the research and the potential billions that hang in the balance for private industry. That kind of schwag rarely gets anywhere near a scientist working on something as mundane as climate.

I can see how someone who has no experience in research would simply see all fields as basically operating the same, so I'm not judging. Not until you come up with some reason to brush this explanation away and continue to embrace your more entertaining fantasy, anyway.
 
2012-07-02 10:36:57 PM

satanorsanta: LouDobbsAwaaaay: The guy averages nine publications per year for 19 years? Good lord. I'd never be able to keep up with research in a field that dumps out papers that fast.

Our group has published 140 papers in the last 10 years. We are above average but not the most.

/and I am in 4 of them
//none fake


A different world as far as I'm concerned. In my field the research groups are typically pretty small. The pace of publication follows suit. I suppose I have to consider the tunnel-vision that naturally occurs as one gravitates toward their niche specialty, but I would think there aren't many labs in my field that would have the money and personnel to put out 10-15 papers per year.
 
2012-07-02 10:51:39 PM
From the article in the article:

"The article published in the January 2001 issue of the Archives titled "Prophylaxis With Oral Granisetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy" by Fujii et al1 is hereby retracted."

Medical terms make my eyes knot.
 
2012-07-02 10:57:10 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.

Not really, no. The history of scientific misconduct is paved with a thousand-thousand stories from biological science. The stakes are so much higher because of the millions changing hands for the research and the potential billions that hang in the balance for private industry. That kind of schwag rarely gets anywhere near a scientist working on something as mundane as climate.

I can see how someone who has no experience in research would simply see all fields as basically operating the same, so I'm not judging. Not until you come up with some reason to brush this explanation away and continue to embrace your more entertaining fantasy, anyway.


So let me get this straight. You are implying that climate science, currently having a smaller funding/grant gravy train (got stats on that, by the way?) than the biological sciences, is therefore immune to faked data and funding/grant fraud?

That's sort of like saying that liquor stores don't need to worry about hold ups since the bad guys are only targeting banks.

That's a pretty good brush there, Poindexter.
 
2012-07-02 11:05:31 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So let me get this straight. You are implying that climate science, currently having a smaller funding/grant gravy train (got stats on that, by the way?) than the biological sciences, is therefore immune to faked data and funding/grant fraud?

That's sort of like saying that liquor stores don't need to worry about hold ups since the bad guys are only targeting banks.

That's a pretty good brush there, Poindexter.



1) You have zero experience with scientific research of any form. The stink of ignorance is all over you.

2) I'm not going to hunt around for stats for someone who immediately ceases intellectual discussion for the "nuh uh [strawman]" defense.

3) Liquor stores can't justify the security costs of banks because the stakes aren't has high.
 
2012-07-02 11:16:09 PM
You mean its not the Autism Vacc link?
 
2012-07-02 11:17:38 PM

CatfoodSpork: anonwums: He's one of those rare "good guys" in the mess that is academia.

I don't think this is so rare. I think those who are bad guys are just so over the top they make themselves appear to be present in greater numbers than they actually are.


You've apparently assumed there are only "good" guys and "bad" guys. I'd say the vast majority just don't want to rock the boat. I'm in a department with 15 P.I.'s - 80% or so are fine. Two are absolute shiat, but have tenure, so everyone else refuses to tell them to get their shiat together. (Granted, there's no explicit fraud as far as I can tell - just the type of misconduct that'd never be tolerated in private industry.) The other researchers certainly sympathize with the students of those P.I.'s, but refuse to intervene because they seem to believe a P.I. should have absolute say over their own lab. (Oh, and the third? No tenure, and I doubt it'll be granted but that's mostly because of research issues. Actually kind of a shame because the biggest flaw is horrid social awareness... which I think *could* be fixed if people would be honest with him.)

/Did private sector before grad school
//Will return to private sector after grad school
 
2012-07-03 12:23:24 AM
Me: "That's sort of like saying that liquor stores don't need to worry about hold ups since the bad guys are only targeting banks."

You: "3) Liquor stores can't justify the security costs of banks because the stakes aren't has high."

One of these things is not like the other.

You:

"1) You have zero experience with scientific research of any form. The stink of ignorance is all over you.

2) I'm not going to hunt around for stats for someone who immediately ceases intellectual discussion for the "nuh uh [strawman]" defense."

Know how I know you have zero experience with rational thinking?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So let me get this straight. You are implying that climate science, currently having a smaller funding/grant gravy train (got stats on that, by the way?) than the biological sciences, is therefore immune to faked data and funding/grant fraud?

That's sort of like saying that liquor stores don't need to worry about hold ups since the bad guys are only targeting banks.

That's a pretty good brush there, Poindexter.


1) You have zero experience with scientific research of any form. The stink of ignorance is all over you.

2) I'm not going to hunt around for stats for someone who immediately ceases intellectual discussion for the "nuh uh [strawman]" defense.

3) Liquor stores can't justify the security costs of banks because the stakes aren't has high.

 
2012-07-03 01:42:38 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.


And therefore we can reject the entire field of climate science out of hand?
 
2012-07-03 02:14:10 AM

Touched Inappropriately By The Hand Of God: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.

And therefore we can reject the entire field of climate science out of hand?


Do you really think that would be a good idea?
 
2012-07-03 02:24:46 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Touched Inappropriately By The Hand Of God: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: born_yesterday: CSB: When I was a grad student, the P.I. in the lab next to ours came under investigation for data fabrication. He had been fabricating data for grants, and it had worked; he was flush with funding. He was given two weeks, and his postdocs left up shiat creek, having to find new positions immediately or be deported.

I found out that this PI had another tenure-track position less than a month later. It was apparently not in the university's interest to report him, since they might have to return the grant money they had already received as overhead...and the new university apparently valued his funding more than they did his lack of ethics.

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin of any dream I had of going into academia. If an utter piece of shiat like that can be a success in every definition of the term (other than, you know, actually researching cancer), while honest hard-working scientists are told "they don't quite have what it takes", then fark the lot of them.

But this phenomenon, of course, totally does not apply to the Global Warming err... Global Climate Change err... Global Climate Disruption True Believers.

And therefore we can reject the entire field of climate science out of hand?

Do you really think that would be a good idea?


I'm trying to figure out what you think.
 
2012-07-03 02:28:49 AM
I knew the female orgasm was a myth!
 
2012-07-03 05:53:05 AM
My PhD advisor and his 2/3 of the management team of my project didn't fake the data, they just didn't check the stuff they cited which would have been trivial. One of his other students called me in his office and handed me a paper and asked me to verify it so I went out and wrote some code that showed it didn't work for any case except the one in as an example. Opps. Thats what my soon to be business partner had figured out and we approached a group that was funding our project and took the contract away from the University. There are still papers being published that are based on the concept in the first paper working.
 
2012-07-03 06:59:06 AM
I'm not dumb enough to be too specific here, but I've seen a researcher publish a paper which was completely WRONG, albeit through no fault of their own, and this person never retracted it because it was their only publication that year. Hopefully nobody ever tries to base their graduate project on it...

YoungLochinvar:
Two are absolute shiat, but have tenure, so everyone else refuses to tell them to get their shiat together. (Granted, there's no explicit fraud as far as I can tell - just the type of misconduct that'd never be tolerated in private industry.) The other researchers certainly sympathize with the students of those P.I.'s, but refuse to intervene because they seem to believe a P.I. should have absolute say over their own lab.

Yes, one of the great disappointments of academe is seeing good PI's circle the wagons with the abusive ones, but this is because they know they'll have to work with these clowns for the next few decades, while students come and go in a few short years.

Inter-faculty feuds can go on for EVER and are the most petty things imaginable ("I just got a new centrifuge paid for with taxpayers' money but YOUR grad student can't ever use it, because someone from your lab broke* something in mine once in the early 90's"). And you never know when the asshat could be made chair of the department and make your life very difficult.

* ie. was the last to use a 20 year old instrument before it needed long overdue repairs
 
2012-07-03 07:08:19 AM

WizardofToast: From the article in the article:

"The article published in the January 2001 issue of the Archives titled "Prophylaxis With Oral Granisetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy" by Fujii et al1 is hereby retracted."

Medical terms make my eyes knot.


It's about preventing gag reflex when having oral sex with a condom.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report