First of all: thanks to the commenters/scientists (the online flash mobbers) for being the most efficient part of the science blogosphere! Although the paper was retracted from the online version of Proteomics, you can still make historical screenshots on the PubMed version.
Blogosphere links in chronological order:
Can you tell a good article from a bad based on the abstract and the title alone? January 29
The fingerprints of a mighty creator in Proteomics, impact factor >5 February 6
A baffling failure of peer review February 7
The Warda-Han-Proteomics scandal: fingerprints of plagiarism, too February 7
A stealth attempt to sneak creationism into a peer-reviewed journal February 7
Commentary: Neither buried nor treasure February 10
One author responds February 11
Deep, healthy lifespan extension 
Nice work!
Brilliant! Thank you, PZ and all the others who handled this issue.
Unfortunately, there are still reasonable articles linked to the Warda/Han paper under “Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience”
Wow. thank you for share.discountvery discountcouponFree coupon code