A hammer blow to national ethics

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
467,
Page:
884
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/467884a
Published online

China needs to act on broader science failures, not simply condemn an isolated case.

The trial of Chinese urologist Xiao Chuanguo for organizing beatings of two of his critics started on a Sunday. By Monday, the Beijing district judge had handed him a five-and-a-half- month sentence, and lesser or equal terms to other men involved. One of the victims, Fang Shimin, a self-styled science watchdog who investigates misconduct claims under the name Fang Zhouzi on his New Threads website, says the penalty is too light. But the judgment has already made Xiao persona non grata in China.

The attacks involved a hammer, steel rods and pepper spray (see Nature 467, 511; 2010). Xiao's supporters argue that the incident involving Fang Shimin followed a long-standing feud between the two men. The Chinese scientific establishment is right to condemn Xiao for his crime, but the authorities should not use this case to divert attention from wider failings in the research community.

The science ministry issued an online statement after the verdict, saying that Xiao “should be condemned for his vicious misconduct and lack of integrity”. The ministry wants nothing to do with Xiao, taking pains to disavow claims that he was chief scientist on a ministry-sponsored science project. The China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), the country's largest non-governmental organization of scientists and engineers, likewise welcomed the judgment. Meanwhile, the widespread and debilitating failures in China's scientific community go on largely uncontested, even though they have created fertile ground for this ugly episode.

Lack of monitoring and regulation in China means false CVs and scientific misconduct are rife there. The laxity can lead to a blurring of the lines between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable scientific behaviour, especially among young researchers. Channels of complaint about misconduct exist, but fear of identification and doubts over effectiveness drive many to launch unofficial, often anonymous attacks. Reasoned examination of facts and allegations gives way to vitriol and fear.

The impacts can be widespread. More than 250 patients in China are now threatening to sue hospitals, or Xiao directly, because they claim a surgical procedure he pioneered — which aims to restore bladder and bowel function in patients with spina bifida or spinal-cord injuries — doesn't work. The procedure has its critics, who say it should be considered experimental (K. M. Peters et al. J. Urol. 184, 702708; 2010). But others back it, and last month 31 scientists (including 22 from the United States) posted a letter of support on the CareCure Community website, which is largely devoted to discussions of cutting-edge spinal therapies. The letter, signed by many who use Xiao's method, asks that his “scientific and humanitarian contributions to the world” are considered. With Xiao's conviction, will his technique get a fair trial?

Chinese government officials often promise to deal with scientific misconduct. This time they should do more than just punish hammer-wielding thugs and take steps to create a system that properly monitors fraud and plagiarism, checks reasonable allegations, prosecutes libellous ones and protects whistleblowers. The careers of scientists, the health of patients and the scientific future of the nation are at stake.

Comments

  1. Report this comment #15129

    Anurag Chaurasia said:

    For the betterment of the global science, Scientists should fearlessly express their openion regarding any scientific matter but unfortunately environment in scientific institutions are not favouring such fearless expression.
    Anurag chaurasia,ICAR,India,anurag@nbaim.org,anurag_vns1@yahoo.co.in,+919452196686(M)

  2. Report this comment #15135

    Yi Ming said:

    To New Threads Volunteers:

    Everyone knows that you cheated the voting results by using a programmed voter. If you insist, I can show the evidence to the world.

  3. Report this comment #15136

    Yi Ming said:

    Here is the evidence that Fang's gang cheated the voting results:

    By yesterday, that website had a total of 27,701 visitors, but Fang received 40,713 votes. However, according to the number of real posts, 95 posts support Xiao, 42 support Fang.

    Now you know what kind of disgusting people the Fang's gang are.

    http://www.rainbowplan.org/bbs/topic.php?topic=122954&select=&forum=1

  4. Report this comment #15137

    Keming Cui said:

    Xiao, Chuanguo is a true scientist, The evidence is as the follow:

    Open letter in support of Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D. from the International Academic Community
    September 29, 2010
    Mr. Zhu Chen, Minister
    Ministry of Health
    People’s Republic of China
    Mr. Peigen Li, President
    Huazhong University of Science and Technology
    People’s Republic of China
    Minister Chen and President Li:
    We have all had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Chuan-Guo Xiao for many years. He is an internationally respected surgeon-scientist who has made major advances in the development of neuroregeneration to restore voiding and bowel function. Dr. Xiao performed groundbreaking animal research in the United States, demonstrating that a motor nerve that innervates the leg can be used to reinnervate the bladder and bowel. This reinnervation allows for development of a reflex to initiate bladder function. The results of his studies were published in peer-reviewed journals and other scientists have replicated Xiao’s findings confirming these results.
    Dr. Xiao eventually took the courageous step of moving from animal research to human studies and began performing the rerouting procedure on patients with spinal cord injury and spina bifida in China. Neurogenic bladder is life threatening in China due to a lack of both antimuscarinics and intermittent catheterization and lessening the complications of neurogenic bladder would be considered a lifesaving success. Patients with neurogenic bladder and bowel suffer greatly and endure a host of issues such as urinary retention, incontinence, recurrent infections, renal insufficiency, fecal incontinence, constipation,and poor quality of life. For a procedure as complicated as nerve rerouting requiring nerve regeneration, one cannot expect normalization of bladder and bowel function to be the definition of success. What is
    important is that the benefits outweigh the risks of the procedure.
    Dr. Xiao published his clinical results in peer-reviewed journals and was twice honored by the Jack Lapides Essay Contest – one of the most respected international awards given to scientists who make major contributions to the field of neurourology. In 2008 he was named the Kelm Hjalmas Memorial Lecturer from the International Children’s Continence Society for his scientific achievements. Many of us have traveled to China to examine patients treated by Dr. Xiao and/or have been trained by him in the nerve rerouting surgery he invented. Dr. Xiao is a very skilled surgeon who is passionate about patient care and works tirelessly to train physicians around the world in performing his nerve rerouting procedure.
    In the United States, an independent and very rigorous pilot research trial was performed to test the safety and efficacy of this procedure. The one-year results were recently published in the Journal of Urology. At the 12-month follow-up visit, a cutaneous to bladder reflex was found in 7 of 9 spina bifida patients, confirming that rerouting does occur. This finding by itself is remarkable and Dr. Xiao should be commended. In addition, a number of patients demonstrated improvement in bladder and bowel function, which has continued to improve with longer patient follow-up. The 36-month results are currently being analyzed and will be reported in the near future. The pilot data was supportive of Dr. Xiao’s procedure and now an NIH sponsored clinical trial is being conducted to further study lumbar to sacral nerve rerouting in spina bifida patients. In addition, similar procedures have been done worldwide with Dr. Xiao helping to mentor the surgeons at each site.

    The Chinese people and government should be proud of Dr. Xiao for his dedication to his patients, his scientific achievements, and his willingness to train doctors around the world on how to perform his surgery. The international scientific community was shocked to hear of Dr. Xiao’s arrest. Those of us who know Dr. Xiao well find it difficult to believe that he is involved in these attacks.
    Dr. Xiao is a compassionate man who is respected worldwide for his integrity and his innovative scientific contributions to society. We implore the Chinese government and authorities to treat Dr. Xiao fairly and to protect his human rights as these charges are investigated. Please strongly consider Dr. Xiao’s scientific and humanitarian contributions to the world as facts are gathered in this case.
    Sincerely,

    Kenneth M. Peters, M.D.
    Professor and Chairman of Urology
    Beaumont Hospital
    Royal Oak, Michigan USA
    Jack S. Elder, M.D.
    Chief of Urology, Henry Ford Health System Associate Director, Vattikuti Urology Institute Dept of Urology,
    Children's Hospital of Michigan
    Clinical Professor of Urology, Case School of
    Medicine
    Detroit, Michigan USA
    Edwin A. Smith, M.D.
    Assistant Clinical Professor of Urology Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Kevin M. Feber, M.D., FAAP Beaumont Children's Hospital Royal Oak, Michigan USA
    Ananias C. Diokno, M.D., F.A.C.S. Executive Vice President & CMO Beaumont Hospital
    Royal Oak, Michigan 48073 USA
    Juan José de Benito, M.D. Urologist
    Hospital Nacional de Clínicas
    Córdoba, Argentina
    William E. Nantau B.Sc., CNIM Clinical Manager
    Clinical Neurophysiology Department
    Beaumont Hospital
    Royal Oak, MI USA
    Evan J Kass, M.D., FACS,.FAAP Chief, Division of Pediatric Urology Beaumont Childrens Hospital
    Professor of Urology, Oakland University
    William Beaumont School of Medicine
    Royal Oak, MI USA

    Jacques Corcos, M.D.
    Professor of Urology, McGill University General Secretary of the International Continence Society
    Jewish General Hospital
    3755 Cote Ste-Catherine
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3T 1E2
    Jose Gonzalez, M.D. Department of Urology Beaumont Hospital
    Royal Oak, Michigan USA
    Christopher Payne, M.D. Associate Professor of Urology Stanford University Medical School Stanford, CA 94305-5118
    USA
    Kenneth I. Glassberg, M.D.
    Director, Division of Pediatric Urology Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian
    Professor of Urology, Columbia University
    College of Physicians and Surgeons
    3959 Broadway, CHN 1118
    New York, NY USA
    Earl Y. Cheng, M.D.
    Associate Professor of Urology Children’s Memorial Hospital Chicago, Illinois USA
    Darius J. Bagli, MDCM Professor of Surgery Senior Associate Scientist
    Director of Urology Research
    Divisions of Urology and Developmental & Stem Cell Biology The Hospital For Sick Children Institute of Medical
    Science University of Toronto

    Henri B. LOTTMANN, M.D., FEBU, FEBPS, FRCS(england) FEBPU
    Paediatric Urology Unit
    Hopital Necker-Enfants-Malades
    149, rue de Sèvres
    75015 Paris, France
    Dr. Amrish Vaidya MS. MCh. Consultant Paediatric Surgeon, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital,
    4 Bungalows, Andheri W, Mumbai, India
    Marc Cendron, M.D.
    Associate Professor in Urology Harvard Medical School Children’s Hospital Boston Boston, MA USA
    Stuart B. Bauer, M.D.
    Associate Director, Neurourology
    Professor of Urology Harvard Medical School Children’s Hospital Boston Boston, MA USA
    Edmond T. Gonzales, Jr., M.D. Professor of Urology
    Baylor College of Medicine
    Houston, TX USA
    Richard Macchia, M.D. FACS
    SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor
    Cleveland Clinic, Florida USA
    Benjamin Girdler, M.D. Urology Center of the Rockies Fort Collins, Colorado USA
    William C. de Groat, Ph.D. Professor of Pharmacology University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA USA
    Michael R. Ruggieri, Sr., Ph.D. Director of Urologic Research
    Temple University School of Medicine
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Stanley J Kogan, M.D. Chief, Pediatric Urology Children's Hospital at Montefiore Bronx, NY USA
    Anthony Caldamone, M.D. University Urologic Associates, Inc.
    2 Dudley St Ste 185
    Providence, RI 02905 USA

    Yves Homsy M.D., FRCSC, FAAP
    Clinical Professor of Urological Surgery and
    Pediatrics
    University of South Florida
    Children's Urology Group
    5507 E. Longboat Blvd
    Tampa FL 33615 USA
    Dr. Enrique Turina
    Professor of Urology of the National University of Buenos Aires
    Chief of Section Urology of Instituto de
    Rehabilitación
    Government of Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Dr. Angel Ozón
    Urologist of the Instituto de Rehabilitación of
    Buenos Aires
    Government of Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Dr. Daniel Ekizian
    Urologist of Instituto de Rehabilitación. Government of Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Professor Dr. med. Karl-Dietrich Sievert
    Vice Chair
    Prof. of Urology, Director – Uro-oncology, Neurourology, Incontinence, & Reconstructive Urology
    Department of Urology University of Tuebingen
    D72076 Tuebingen, Germany
    Holly Gilmer, M.D.
    Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery
    Beaumont Hospital
    Royal Oak, Michigan USA
    Yegappan Lakshmanan, M.D. Chief, Pediatric Urology Children’s Hospital of Michigan Detroit, MI USA
    Fábio V C Sparapani, M.D., PHD Escola Paulista de Medicina-
    Federal University of São Paulo, Brasil
    David B. Joseph, M.D. Professor of Surgery
    Chief of Pediatric Urology UAB School of Medicine Birmingham, Alabama USA

  5. Report this comment #15151

    John Sandren said:

    Xiao beat his critics in mafia style, twice. He's a thug and should stay in jail intead of operating on children.

  6. Report this comment #15162

    Mart Y said:

    Give me an answer ok?
    (original posted at http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467511a.html)

    I asked the question below on 2010-9-30, and then again on 2010-10-2. Sadly Yi Ming and his fellows are simply hiding. With their logic, they simply don't have the gut.

    "Hey, Xiao supporters, can you clarify whether Xiao is an Honorary Professor in the University of Hong Kong? Some sources mentioned that but some not."

    ---
    (Reference) Yi Ming (#14552) said:
    "Here are the simple questions I asked Fang's lawyer Peng Jian three days ago, on Science's website. He does not have the guts to answer them"

  7. Report this comment #15163

    Allen Li said:

    There are some allegations that Mr Yi Ming (Xin Ge) used false CV for positions in China.

  8. Report this comment #15164

    Mart Y said:

    Yi Ming, give me the answer to the simple question that I asked on 2010-9-30 please. Just a small piece of real information, and I don't think that it's something that needs to be hidden.

    I hope you don't mind that nobody is paying you for giving that small piece of real information.

    By the way, if you are a scientific-minded, honest adult living in a civilized world, you should know that an online polling on people's daily, or anywhere in Mainland China, is completely pointless. They simply don't maintain their system, unless when they need to deal with sensitive words. It's EQUALLY believable that Xiao can hire somebody to manipulate the result, as a dirty smear to Feng supporters.

  9. Report this comment #15170

    New Threads Volunteers said:

    Re-post again:

    2010-10-20 09:08 AM
    New Threads Volunteers said:

    The criticism on the procedure is far more serious than "it should be considered experimental". Here we cite a few from the Editorial and the Editorial Comments on Peters et al' s results published in J. Urol.

    "the results of the study by Peters et al are the first to challenge the excellent, previously published results of nerve rerouting that showed up to 85% success"

    "the clinical benefit of the procedure is not at all similar to previous (Dr. Xiao's) reports"

    "The fact ... is troubling in light of the report of 87% success with 110 children with spina bifida presented by Xiao"

    "Xiao reported that more than 87% of 110 patients gained sensation and continence within 1 year. In comparison, the current patients undergoing the identical procedure with the help of Xiao himself only showed a modest improvement"

    "Unless the innovators provide a sound argument and data for the validity of the procedure, there is a great danger of its improper and rapid adaptation by patients and the medical community at large"

    Readers can find the full text of the peer experts' comments at our blog

  10. Report this comment #15173

    Yi Ming said:

    New Threads Volunteers: If you tell the world who you are, then I will do the same. By the way, Haven't you guys already posted my private info, including my name, address, phone number, on New Threads? What else do you want? Please tell me.

  11. Report this comment #15176

    New Threads Volunteers said:

    To Yi Ming:

    We do not want tell you who we are, for fear of hammers blowing to our heads, as we already stated in our Open Letter against the Xiao Procedure

    You said we posted your private info on New Threads. It must be an unfortunate incident, as your private info happened to appear in your CV along with your self-promoted Associate Professor when you cheated around in China in 2003 and 2007 for a so-called more-than-20-million-dollar business.

  12. Report this comment #15185

    Yi Ming said:

    Hi The World: Please take a look at the so called New Threads Volunteers. What they are doing to me, is exactly what they did to Dr, Xiao, i.e. personal attacking, slandering, and spreading baseless rumors. Why do they pick on us? Because we have been criticizing and exposing Fang's evilness. That's the only reason. This Monday, I sent a letter to Michigan State University, reporting that Fang stole his professor's paper while he was a student there in 1995. All of sudden, these New Threads people started attacking on me. Dr. Xiao did a similar thing 9 years ago, reporting to Science that Fang stole a Science paper.

  13. Report this comment #15186

    Yi Ming said:

    Here is the letter I sent to MSU

    Dear Doctors.,

    Shimin Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi), a Ph. D. student in the department of Biochemistry at Michigan State University, during 1990 to 1995, has been a controversial figure in China for about 10 years. On the one hand, he is called “China’s Fraud Buster” by some leading western journals, on the other hand, many Chinese scholars have found his so called “fraud busting” activity is nothing but a path to get fame, monetary profit, and to avenge personal enemies. One such example has been well documented in one of my books (in Chinese), The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, which will be published in China soon.

    In this letter, I’d like to bring your attention to another aspect of Dr. Fang, his plagiarism activity. Dr. Fang has been accused of plagiarism for many times in China, the earliest incidence was reported to Science magazine by Dr. Xiao Chuanguo in 2001 (thus the feud started). However, while doing research on Dr. Fang, I have discovered an even earlier case of his plagiarism.

    In 1995, Fang wrote an essay in Chinese and published it on the internet and kept it in the “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays” on his website. That essay was almost a word-for-word translation of Dr. R. Root-Bernstein’s paper, but Fang never acknowledged that fact. According to MSU Graduate School’s Guidelines for Integrity in Research and Creative Activities, plagiarism is defined as “appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” (see: [grad.msu.edu]). I’m presenting to you evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Fang did commit an act of plagiarism while he was a student of your school. (see attachment 1.)

    Please note that stealing other people’s articles is a constant and habitual behavior of Fang’s. I have attached two papers to this email to illustrate this point. The articles were written by Dr. Liu Huajia of Beijing University, and Dr. Liao Junlin of University of Iowa, in 2006 and 2009, respectively, which give detailed accounts of two separate cases. (see attachments 2-3.) These cases are examples that Dr. Fang writes his Chinese articles, which is his only income source in China, by directly translate an English articles.

    It is well known that reputation is the life of any academic institutions, and integrity is at the core of reputation. Obviously, the reputation of MSU is tarnished by what Dr. Fang has been doing, at least to many Chinese oversea scholars it is so, that’s why I write to you.

    I can be contacted by email, or you can call me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

    Thanks for your attention.

    Sincerely yours,

  14. Report this comment #15189

    David HSU said:

    I think Yi Ming's comment about Fang Shiming is true and correct . Frankly speaking, Fang Shiming and Fang Xuanchang are not specialized in medical science and almost know nothing in Dr.Xiao's research field. Obviously Mr.Fang is not qualified to judge Dr.Xiao's research result and surgical procedure. As far as I know, many Doctors in China, U.S, Britain, India and Argentina support Dr. Xiao and adopt his new surgical procedure.See: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/NImTtUFC2nU/ and http://sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=367624 And the US NIH provided Dr.Xiao $2,300,000 as his research fund. See: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7696321 and http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=288343 . Evan Kass MD,Chief of Pediatric Urology at the Beaumont Children's Hospital said:" Dr Xiao is a brilliant man, he is a good man, a caring physician, gifted surgeon, and an honest investigator. " However, to defame Dr.Xiao, Fang used intentionally other people's right foot photo as one patient left foot photo in an attempt to support his criticism and attack against Dr.Xiao as his so-called "first-hand" evidence. This is a kind of cheating, and is also a stupid and shameless behavior! See: http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=367028 .

    I guess your article was written based on some wrong information you got from Mr. Fang Shimin. Mr.Fang always alleged that Dr.Xiao wants to kill him after he got a physical attack by two men on Aug.29. However Fang's allegation is ridiculous as no body was so stupid or foolish to kill someone in daytime and downtown area with a lot of people around. I think it is just a ordinary and normal fighting between two or three men which occurs every day in Beijing. If Fang Shimin is a ordinary people, Beijing police department would certainly not take this case so seriously. Dr.Xiao admitted he indeed involved in this attack against Fang Shimin, but he said he just wanted to scare off Fang Shimin (show some color to him) as Fang repeatedly attacked and defamed Dr.Xiao and his surgical procedure in past five years.
    From here:
    http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=367028 ,
    we can see that Fang Shimin tried every effort to destroyed Xiao's reputation with his faked so called "first-hand" evidence.

    Obviously this article was based on one-side information from Fang Shimin, and you didn't ask or verify some facts from Dr. Xiao. It is not fair to Dr.Xiao, especially at this time when the Dr. Xiao is still in jail and has no chance to explain anything to public.

    From the facts and materials I collected, I strongly agree with Dr. Even Kass. Gary , another American doctor, also had comment: "Dr. Xiao is a great doctor, who not only belongs to China, but also to the whole world. He travels around the world to teach other urologists and neurosurgeons the method he invented to help paralyzed patients gain control over their lives. Doctors all over the world will respect, salute, and sympathize with Dr. Xiao." by Gary. And I believe more and more people will realize what's Fang's true purpose and intention to defame Dr.Xiao who accused Mr.Fang of plagiarism in 2001.

  15. Report this comment #15190

    Fraud Buster said:

    Xiao’s attack on the Fangs is clearly unacceptable and justice is served there. But before you tie the “national ethics” to the “hammer”, you may want to know more about the two Fangs and why a prominent internationally known surgeon committed such a crime.

    This is an information age. We all know that there is more information than we can ever process. Most of the people take the easy route. They depend on key informers for an opinion and subsequently rationalize it with conditional search of information. Undoubtedly Nature took such a route, just like Science did years ago. When you feel like to criticize the “national ethics” of China, you probably need to exam the integrity of your information sources.

    Xiao and Fang Zhouzi (Fang subsequently) have had a long history of feuding. Apparently Fang has always got the upper hand because of his much superior skills of manipulation of public image. Fang is a known plagiarizer to many who are familiar with his works. There was one time he was forced to pay back royalty because he published an article twice with minor modification in the later one. There are numerous cases of plagiarism in Fang’s works.

    Xiao and Fang’s feuding started with a plagiarized article by Fang. Xiao wrote to the esteemed journal Science to accuse Fang of plagiarism in 2002. Science claimed to have conducted an investigation with an independent source that translated Fang’s article for comparison. Amazingly, Science failed to find plagiarism in Fang’s article. Nonetheless, Science concluded that Fang’s writing was unacceptable.

    The integrity of the journal Science is in question not only because it failed to identify plagiarism that could easily be detected by someone with some knowledge in both Chinese and English, but also because of later developments. It involved two of Science’s reporters, one named Hepeng Jia and the other named Lei Xiong.

    Jia tried to interview Xiao. Being a busy surgeon and probably lack of skills dealing with media, Xiao generally avoided reporters. Before Jia can interview him, Xiao insisted that Jia gave an honest opinion whether Fang had indeed plagiarized as he had charged Fang of. Jia artfully avoided the question but told Xiao that Xiong was in the investigation team. Later Xiao confronted Xiong, and she denied that she was involved in Science decision in any form! Someone is lying, right?

    Jia’s article later in Science sided with Fang and covered any charges of Fang that Xiao had put forth in the interview. Jia never answered the simple question whether Fang had plagiarized against Greene’s Science article. Jia later held editor-in-chief position of a Chinese journal Science News and his journal supported Fang and his cause. As a loyal public supporter of Fang, why cannot Jia answer that simple question, even after Science said that Fang did not plagiarize?

    We could not help but suspect that Science can lie and he cannot, not face to face. In Fang’s article, he translated four paragraphs from J.D. Greene word for word and then paraphrased the rest. It is a clear case of cross language plagiarism. Wouldn’t Jia and Xiong be proud if they defended Fang when he was innocent? Of course the problem is that Fang was clearly not innocent.

    Fang has become famous in China and among Chinese overseas by his academic fraud busting activities. However, fraud busting would not generate any income. He is a freelance writer and he makes ends meet by earning money from publishing. Being on the front-line accusing other people of plagiarism in science writing, shouldn’t Fang be held to the same standards? The irony is that Fang is worse than most of the frauds he had exposed and yet, just like this Nature article says, he is the “science watchdog”.

    This “science watchdog” believes in the thousand-year Chinese philosophy “all writings plagiarize”(“Tian Xia Wen Zhang Yi Da Chao” in Chinese). He had revealed his secret in writing in a web post when he was not famous. There are numerous examples of Fang’s plagiarism and bad science writing. For example, he had published no less than ten books. In his books, there are numerous charts and photos, mostly plagiarized from the Internet without crediting the sources and permissions from original authors. Careful inspection revealed that Fang even plagiarizes against materials in Chinese.

    Probably nothing is more telling than Fang’s plagiarism against Lederman in 2006. Then he had already established a firm reputation as “science watchdog” and his many supporters crowned him the title “Fraud Buster Number One” or “Warrior against Frauds”. He felt eager to sermon the Chinese on virtue of ethical science. Lederman as an editor of Inside Higher Ed conveniently published two articles discussing the Ohio University plagiarism scandal and they were available on the Internet.

    Fang translated the title of later article and word for word of six paragraphs from the earlier article. There were only ten paragraphs in his article and in the remaining four paragraphs, he messed up all the facts about the scandal and then lectured the Chinese to have a system to fight fraud! What a fraud!

    Fang is an artist of public opinion manipulation and he has a powerful and loyal group of supporters. His supporters always use the most abusive language against any public enemies of Fang. Most of the people will respond to his supporters and subsequently be seen as uncivil and impolite. His supporters are always anonymous and worry little about their images. Remaining anonymous, his supporters invaded every kind of privacy and attacked Xiao with unacceptable defamatory languages. Forcing his opponents to sink to his supporters’ level of violent behaviors and languages is a powerful psychological strategy that Fang and his followers have been using. Xiao’s attack on Fang does have root causes and is simply additional evidence that this strategy works again.

    Careful manipulation of public image made Fang invincible. He had setbacks when he was on the rise to star-ship. Some of the Chinese media questioned him. But he survived and after many media reports from the West touting him as the science watchdog of China, the Chinese media no longer challenges him anymore. Fang’s plagiarism is widely exposed on the Internet. However, none of the Chinese media or media in the West is interested in exposing him. To many, an icon as Fang is necessary to show that there are many frauds in China.

    The other X. Fang being attacked by Xiao is a powerful media figure. He had led a muckraking campaign against Xiao. It is of course a fair game if you muckrake in line with morals and professional integrity, right? X. Fang sent his reporter to Xiao, pretending to do a fair reporting on Xiao’s research. Actually, Xiao had been increasingly fearful of media after numerous unfair (at least to him) reports of his research and career.

    The reporter that X. Fang sent had to work through friendly connections to reach Xiao. Thus, Xiao was promised a friendly coverage implicitly. Anybody can imagine the excitement of Xiao to finally find someone he can trust in the unfriendly media world. He trusted X. Fang’s journal with all the evidences he can provide. It was proven again that Xiao was gullible and his guard against media by avoiding almost any contacts was not sufficient. X. Fang’s journal did an exposé on Xiao without any supporting evidences that Xiao had submitted. One of the key documents later showed up on Fang’s website and was used against Xiao of course!

    Before you pass judgment on Xiao, I guess you really have to question the integrity of those who supplied you information, and that of your own. For example, an influential paper did an exposé on Xiao’s procedure. The article basically claimed that Xiao’s procedure cripples people. There was a picture of someone with Xiao’s procedure suffering from an heel ulcer. The unsuspecting public swallowed it without a doubt. Anyone with a little bit of understanding of the procedure and the medical condition will laugh. Xiao’s procedure was performed on the left and they showed an ulcer on the right foot.

    Fang’s writing style is not of constrained type. He has a “warrior” image. He confronts people. In other words, he is a loose cannon. He abuses reporters, editors, newspapers, and journals verbally quite often. His website has a long list of “bad” reporters who had ever crossed him. Yet those media still haul him as an icon of fraud busting. What does that suggest? We are yet to find out. But undoubtedly Fang has powerful media connections that protected him well and served him well in fighting any of his public enemies. Xiao’s effort to expose Fang’s plagiarism made him public enemy number one of Fang and bad media exposure has never stopped since then.

    Fang repeatedly declares that he exposes frauds no matter who the persons are. The media exposure of Xiao invariably went to X. Ji for expert opinion. X. Ji is a close ally of Fang. Fang had exposed other people cheating funds with “Nano technology”. Interestingly, Ji had done the same thing with his “International Nano Medicine Institute” and was repeatedly reported to Fang by informers. Fang simply ignored such charges. Ji is a pathologist and he had exposed one of his patient’s private medical information online! Ji’s medical knowledge is so poor that he claimed that in Xiao’s procedure Xiao has to connect EVERY nerve fiber to be successful, thus he had theoretically proven that Xiao’s procedure is a fraud! Anybody with basic understanding of nerve healing will laugh at his expertise. Yet, unsuspecting public readily swallowed the misinformation to Xiao’s discredit.

    I detest Xiao’s uncivil behavior just like everyone else. But I do think Xiao deserves better treatment than being paint as a thug for I know why everything happened the way it happened. Your conclusion to tie the hammer to national ethics is laughable, for you only know partial truth or even no truth at all. How much would you credit this “science watchdog” if you know the following truths?

    1) Xiao had repeatedly tried legal means to stop Fang’s libel against him. He sued in China and won. He sued in U.S. but the subpoena was not deliverable!

    2) Xiao would experience many frustrations to deliver court documents to Fang later. Fang had many legal battles, one thing in common is that court documents are always difficult to be delivered to him.

    3) In one occasion, Xiao hired a delivery company to deliver and record as evidence that Fang received court documents. Fang lied to the public that he received threats of personal attack! But he never revealed the content of the documents! Xiao later posted the recording online and guess what? Fang continues to claim that was an actual threat and he refuses to reveal the contents of the documents!

    4) Fang was ordered by a court to pay a fine and issue public apology to Xiao. Fang ignored the court order for years until police got hold of his family bank account under his wife’s name. Fang and his followers have subsequently abused the court and police verbally for a long time. To date, Fang is still in contempt of a court order and has yet to issue a public apology to Xiao. Court order had no effect on Fang’s defamation efforts of Xiao. Actually, the slanderous attack on Xiao by Fang and his followers has intensified and escalated to anybody related to Xiao subsequently.

    5) In court documents in China, Fang forged a nonexistent fake U.S. address!

    6) Fang had openly denounced a critic who had been contributing to his website for years. He announced that no writings of this critic would ever be accepted by his website and he purged all writings of this critic. But upon close examination he kept some. It’s hardly surprising that those ones he kept were attacking his enemies. There may be an excuse that he did not get to all of them. Then this critic had written an article criticizing one of his enemies again and it’s published elsewhere. Amazingly, Fang would steal this article and changed the contents to publish on his website!

    There are many behaviors and writings of Fang that could easily provoke a “watchdog” of any kind to bark. But if the above evidence could not convince you, more would make no difference.

    The national ethics could in a way be linked to the hammer, just not the way you imagined. The true tragedy of Chinese national ethics is really related to a fraudulent idol of self-claimed science police which is largely created by the esteemed media of the West.

    Don’t look down on the Chinese, exam your own integrity. Fang is a U.S. citizen after all. Xiao published mostly on U.S. academic journals and he was awarded most distinguishing awards by professional societies in U.S. as well.

  16. Report this comment #15191

    Pain Free said:

    Frankly, I am a M.D. scientist in the U.S. and a Xiao supporter. Here is why:

    The allegations against Dr. Xiao and the Xiao procedure for treating patients with spina bifida lack reliable evidence. Some have claimed that the success rate of his procedure is 0 based on a telephone survey conducted by a lawyer and two student assistants who have no medical or any research knowledge. The questionnaires provided to 74 out of >1000 patients they selected were: complete cure (yes or no), very obvious effect (yes or no), effective (yes or no), lead to severe side effects (yes or no). The conclusion of the survey is 0% success rate.

    To me, this is a joke for several reasons: 1) illegal-how did they obtain the patients’ information? 2) no clinical scientists or professionals involved, no clinical examinations or lab tests; 3) biased and confusing questionnaires; and 4) the date of the surgery is not clear. 5) the lawyer who conducted the survey has been encouraging the patients to file a lawsuit again Dr. Xiao. I would also like to mention that none of the procedures was performed by Dr. Xiao.

    Although lack of any merit in this survey, it was enough to inflame the media and the public against Dr. Xiao and his procedure.

  17. Report this comment #15192

    Pain Free said:

    To speak for the fact, here is a ppt presentation by Dr. Peters at the GLSUNA showing a significant improvment in some of the first 9 patients received the Xiao procedure. Please note the results from the 4 new cases he added to the study. In only 6 months, 2 of the 4 patients are voiding of catheter.

    􀂄 Recently finished 2 year follow-up
    􀂄 Currently 4 of 9 off catheterization
    􀂄 Bowels improved in most
    􀂄 Incontinence still problem in some
    􀂄 2 “homeruns”
    􀂄 Recently performed the rerouting procedure on 4 more children
    􀂄 At 6-months 2 of 4 are voiding off catheter

    http://www.glsuna.com/PetersGLSUNA2010.pdf

  18. Report this comment #15193

    New Threads Volunteers said:

    To Pain Free:
    The scope and the time-frame of the investigation by the human right lawyers were clearly indicated in their report
    "110 patients who underwent the surgery between the end of August 2006 and the end of March 2007. Four lawyers and two interns managed to contact the above-mentioned 110 patients and have reached and interviewed 74 patients or their parents by telephone."

    Besides lawyers, reporters from all over China also conducted their own independent investigations, for example, this most recent one reported 7 unsuccessful cases including one who was once widely advertised to be cured by Xiao's hospital.

  19. Report this comment #15194

    New Threads Volunteers said:

    Deputy news editor of Science responded to Dr. Xiao's false accusation against Dr. Fang in 2001, revealed by Xiao himself in 2006

    From: Jeffrey Mervis <jmervis@aaas.org>
    To: ******@***.edu
    Subject: re: Fang letter
    Date: Tue30 Oct 2001 14:10:09 -0500
    Dear Dr. XX

    The editor has asked me to reply to your concern about the article by Shimin Fang that appeared in Southern Weekend. We at Science have spend a good deal of time looking into the question of whether his article plagiarizes the manuscript that appeared in the 14 September issue of Science by Greene et al. Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of Fang\'s article, translated by an independent source.

    We believe that Fang\'s article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in a US publication.

    However, a charge of plagiarism would be difficult to uphold since Fang did say the work was performed by researchers at Princeton University, and--unless the translation I have is wrong--he neither implied that the work was his own by witing in the first person nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.

    As you point out, the issue is an important one. And we certainly appreciate queries like yours that require us to examine our practices.

    I hope that this clarifies our view of the matter. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.

    Respectfully,

    Jeffrey Mervis
    Deputy news editor
    Science magazine

    ----------------
    Now, another fake Associate Professor (Dr. Xiao also self-claimed so), Yi Ming along with Dr. Fang's other enemies are trying to do the same thing that Dr. Xiao did 9 year later.

    Onle one question is unknow: do they have the same guts to wield the same hammer?

  20. Report this comment #15196

    New Threads Volunteers said:

    The criticism on Xiao's procedure is far more serious than "it should be considered experimental". Here is another piece of comments, reported by Associated Press

    "Most of the pediatric urologists in the United States were very cynical about his reports," said Dr. Eric Kurzrock, chief of pediatric urology at the UC Davis Children's Hospital in Sacramento, California. "Nobody ever believed there was an 85 percent success rate, you know, and when you looked at his reports they were very short on details."

  21. Report this comment #15198

    Yi Ming said:

    Dear New Threads Volunteers: assume your allegation is true, then please answer the following questions in front of the world:

    1, Did Fang admit he knew who I am long time ago, back in 2003? (hint: the answer is yes)

    2. Wasn't he the person reveal my name on New Threads on October 16, 2010? (hint: the answer is yes)

    3. Didn't you start attacking me on the same day?(hint: the answer is yes)

    4. So why did Fang wait so long to expose my fraudulent activities 3-7 years ago? (hint: there is no answer)

    5. Whether that's because I announced on October 16, 2010, I would report to MSU that Fang plagiarized his professor in 1995? (hint: the answer is yes)

    6. So, do you think it looks like a revenge, instead of fraud basting? (hint: the answer is yes).

    Also, everyone knows you are just a puppet manipulated by Fang. So please let Fang come out and answer these questions.

    Thanks.

  22. Report this comment #15199

    zhiyan le said:

    NIH has completely rejected Fang Zhouzi’s accusations on Xiao Chuan-guo.
    Does this magazine know that or do a basic fact-check?
    This editorial is just an English version of what Fang Zhouzi said.
    It is a sort of one-sided story writing, which is one of the biggest ethical problems in any type of journal(s). And such problem could be avoided by basic fact-check. Obviously, the magazine did not do it.
    Wondering, if this magazine has lost its integrity in journalism when writing about China.

  23. Report this comment #15202

    B T Tan said:

    What whatever perspective or preconception one might have, violence in the scientific community must be unacceptable.
    China has a relatively short history in research, especially in science, and the researchers seem to be rather immature. Moreover, many are not game enough to accept criticism and blinded by the urge to quick fame.
    Time to grow up. (btt1943)

  24. Report this comment #15212

    Mart Y said:

    Yi Ming, I know nobody pays you for answering my questions, but just give me this piece of information OK?
    (original posted at http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467511a.html)

    "can you clarify whether Xiao is an Honorary Professor in the University of Hong Kong? Some sources mentioned that but some not."

    ---

    By the way, everybody that actually reads about this incident know that "www.sciencenet.cn" is largely controlled by Xiao supporters. You better use other sources to support your argument, if you're really trying to make a meaningful discussion here.

  25. Report this comment #15229

    Keming Cui said:

    When a true scientist was endlessly disturbed in the midst of his research, he should be capable of making a mistake.

  26. Report this comment #15234

    Mart Y said:

    It is just common sense that an ethical and responsible scientist will never conduct "surgical experiments" on human subjects; unless the surgery to be conducted had already been supported by years of animal studies and basic research with very promising results, gained sufficient acceptance in the field, using REAL, UNMANIPULATED DATA to explain the anticipated outcome, side effect and successful rate of the surgical procedure to the patients (subjects), and clearly explaining to the subjects that the surgical procedure is purely experimental and not a miraculous cure.

    So now, the question is, can an unethical and irresponsible scientist be a true scientist?

  27. Report this comment #15288

    Wesley Button said:

    So this guy used a hammer and metal bar to do what US scientists do with political games and backroom "peer-review". Is it really any worse?

  28. Report this comment #15313

    Mart Y said:

    Re: Wesley Button

    Indeed, what you mentioned is just a small part of what the guy has done (indirectly), but ironically that's the only part that can get him into legal troubles in China.

  29. Report this comment #15405

    Amy Tang said:

    Hello Everyone:

    I just read that Sheng Yang (沈阳) cheated on the votes. Shame!. Would those who support Xiao all turn out to be Xiao alike?

    By the way, if you look at the webpage of Peters' hospital, letters to patients, and his article, you would find that the numbers about Xiao procedure have been inconsistent. He should be serious about those data, should he not?

    It is all ridiculous.

    The following is copied from http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/no110/1/105429.shtml

    光明网 沈阳先生9月27日搞了个《方肖血仇十年反思录》,据他自称在中国主流媒体有关肖传国雇凶打方舟子事件中,报道最客观、最公正、最公平的首推《光明网》和《科学网》。。。本人前去参观了光明网,最客观、最公正、最公平的地方倒没发现多少。。。但《光明网》最有特色的就是他的有关方舟肖专题的投票,前期的一项投票,创下了投票量460万张得记录,这个记录,在中国主流媒体中独领风骚,在世界主流媒体中估计也是翘楚。。。
      据参与投票相关人士介绍---(见凯迪网一位ID雪山飞熊11的帖子)
      http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=1&ID=6500971
      
      
      [原创]光明网 方舟子与肖传国专题 网络投票”闹剧“真相
      文章提交者:雪山飞熊11 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net
      
       揭开《光明网》方舟子与肖传国专题 网络投票“闹剧”真相
       -----兼答 国语21
      
      
       大家好,我是《光明网》方舟子与肖传国专题 网络投票“闹剧”制造者之一。(为方便发此帖子前天晚上新注册凯迪网ID 雪山飞熊11)。
       这件事过去好几天了,我也没当回事,以为就是一场游戏、闹剧吧了!
       ---本来光明网的投票规则制定极其简单或低劣!视同儿戏!投票设计者的水平也就是一个做过8年兽医人的水平,呵呵。(注1)
       16日晚23:00左右,我忙完手头的工作,上网看新闻,偶然的机会来到凯迪网在猫眼看人板块 发现一位网络ID叫:国语21 的人 有篇叫《直播:方舟子VS肖传国 投票中谁造假—看图便知!》的帖子
       看后不仅哑然失笑。。。。。。
       什么叫“猪八戒倒打一耙”?
       国语21就是,呵呵。
       我想问国语21一句,支持肖传国的240多万票怎么来的?都是一人一票手动投的?
       仔细看完该帖网友的议论,再百度了下,才发现这玩笑开大了。。。后果也蛮严重的。。。。。。
      
      
       (1)反方舟子的一些人拿这次“投票闹剧”四处说事,攻击方舟子,一副“我做得,你做不得”“贼喊捉贼”的嘴脸。。。。。。这是我没料想到的,也对方舟子的真正支持者说声抱歉!
       (2)著名的反方斗士吴宝俊也拿240多万的投票说事,真逗!首先他在10月6日的博客中说“(投票)作弊器是铁定有人用了的,在使用作弊器投票的问题上,正方和反方都在比谁更无聊,更空虚,更寂寞。”还比较客观,并建议光明网“当然,我个人认为,最好是干脆取消这个投票”,可惜光明网沈阳先生是不会取消的。但是吴宝俊在10月8日的博客中又说“看来,连在民众眼里打假是不是真打,都要依靠作弊来决定。这事情太讽刺了”字里行间,立场偏颇,“难道只许州官放火,不许百姓点灯”,呵呵(http://www.sciencenet.cn/m /user_index1.aspx?typeid=145826&userid=200147)
       。。。。。。
      
       截止光明网撤掉这次投票,光明网双方阵营投票共计约450多万张,这是什么概念?
       网友可能自己有判断,我上网不多可能估计不准,换算到光明网这一专题的点击流量,可能十分惊人,如果不能就此判断光明网是世界上“超级”网站,可能很多人不服!沈阳先生可能是揣着明白装糊涂了,很“谦虚”了一下说“ 有数十万人投票 ”,如果真能有数十万人去光明网投票,那我首先恭喜沈阳先生真是“网络经营奇才”,沈阳先生对自己的一亩三分地自豪一下也不是没有根据。但我想小小反驳下沈阳先生,刨除我们这些机器投票者恶作剧的投票量,能有3万人(一人一票)到光明网投票已经是沈阳先生的大声替肖传国先生疾呼的最大能量了。。。。。。
      
       闲话少说,我就这次投票的真相做一还原(仅凭记忆或部分网络资料,我没想到今天要写这帖子,要知道早留下些原始资料多好,后悔,呵呵)
       。。。。
       (首先我申明我上网不多,充其量只能算是个网络潜水者,上网大多数的时候不言不语,不参加任何阵营,只是好报打不平,呵呵)
      
      
       现在想来国庆假期真是有点滑稽、无聊。。。
       10月3日晚上偶然看到沈阳先生宣传的光明网方舟子与肖传国专题预告,标榜站在第三者的立场上公平、公正报道,就去光明网看了下方肖专题,当时觉得在肖传国“雇凶伤人”事实基本清楚的情况下,光明网的立场偏颇,标新立异,替肖传国鸣冤叫屈,有点混淆视听的感觉,但言论自由嘛,也不能说什么,但沈阳先生羞答答的以第三方的观点出现,似乎显得不那么光明磊落。。。挺肖就挺肖嘛,干吗遮遮掩掩呢?
       记得当时看到的投票情况是支持方的投票略站上风(约8千多票,肖的票7千多票),挺肖的网站嘛。。。这个比例也属基本正常,呵呵。
      
       10月4日,在网上到处溜达,偶然去乌有之乡浏览时一篇《光明网专题讨论:《科学新闻》不实报道引发二方被打和肖传国入狱》的文章时看到该贴的一篇跟帖引起了我的注意
      http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201010/186142.html(今天找到的原帖)
      2 楼【sixiangzhe】 于 2010-10-4 16:11:38 评论说
      光明网调查结果
      您怎么看待方舟子打假行动?
      选项 票数 比例图
      真打 8324票 6.04%
      假打 129430票 93.93%
      误打 42票 0%
      调查总人数:137796
       这可能吗?支持肖传国93.9%,支持方舟子6.04%,开玩笑?
       我又返回去光明网看投票结果发现这位网友所言不虚,我只是感到疑惑,为什么仅仅在一天之间支持肖传国的投票就增加12多万票,有什么猫腻?
       好奇心促使下我试了下投票,才发现秘密所在(该投票不限iP,随意可以灌票),俗话说“路见不平,拔刀相助”,呵呵,我喜欢同情弱者,就手动灌了三百多票(真累)。。。
       但看到支持肖传国的票忽忽往上涨,我的投票速度也太慢了,怎么也赶不上对方的投票速度,但手工投实在太累,只得作罢。。。
       和同事聊起此事,他说,你真傻,都什么年代了,还手工投票,网上有点击投票器,去下载个就是了。。。我恍然大悟,明白了支持肖传国的投票为什么那样快!
       我立马上网下载了个鼠标点击器,一试果然好用,后经过调试,一秒钟可以点击10次左右,终于可以赶上对方的速度了(对方也估计用的同一点击器,呵呵)由于票数基数低,虽然速度相同,但支持方舟子票数的百分比逐渐和肖传国的票数百分比拉近。。。呵呵。
       更让我感到好玩的是我的“同盟军”到了,在我暂停投票浏览其他网站新闻的时候,支持方舟子的票仍在增长,初步估计这位同盟军的灌票速度和我接近,略比我高,这使我信心大增,这天晚上睡觉前,没关电脑,就让鼠标点击器点了个通宵,早上一计算战果,发现百分比接近了,初步计算每小时比对方多出1万多张票。。。(今天在乌有之乡找到张帖子,终于知道对手是谁了,就是这位叫 虎门销烟 的先生,可能也是替肖传国灌票的主力之一,呵呵。。。有兴趣的朋友去这地址看下这篇帖子:http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article /view/201010/186303.html
       但10月6号早上,本人要外出两天,心里想我那位“同盟军”就要孤军奋战了,我想只要不拉开太大差距,7号晚上我回来后就有火力支援了,哈哈。。。
       10月7号晚上回家打开电脑一看,发现沈阳先生在光明网发了条申明说投票规则做了改动。。。我也发现我没灌票的这段时间投票差距继续拉大到七八十万张,支持肖传国的“灌票已经超过200多万张,我那位“同盟军”确实是在孤军奋战,对方火力十足啊(据此估计对方有3-6人或台电脑在灌票)因为我没有当时的截图或数据就借用下面的数据:http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=370084
      
      8] 标题:
      发表评论人:WC101 [2010-10-6 21:21:45]
      选项 票数 比例图
      您相信“肖氏反射弧”是国际先进技术吗?
      选项-- 票数---- 比例图
      是--- 533339票- -38.11%
      不是-- 667691票- 47.71%
      不清楚- 198330票-14.17%
      ====================================================
      
      您怎么看待方舟子打假行动?
      选项-- 票数---- 比例图
      真打-- 1376949票-- 41.22%
      假打-- 1925877票-- 57.66%
      误打-- 37371票-- 1.12%
      
       也许“故事”到此为止了。。。
       但是我不明白的是既然沈阳先生知道投票结果受到干扰,为什么还将这次投票结果保留?为什么不删除或改进规则后重新投票?仅仅做了个简单的规则改变。。。灌票的结果仍保留!
      
      10月6日的光明网的投票规则改变了什么?
       我又试了下投票,结果发现,鼠标点击器是不能用了,在同一位置不能连续点击(第二次点击时告知:不能重复投票)。但发现一个漏洞,既:点击下一个提交后,再点上一个提交仍可重复投票,而且这次规则改变仍然不限制IP。。。
       嘿嘿,只要有个软件能在两个位置能够循环反复点击不就解决问题了吗?仍然可以“灌票 ”啊!
       我搜了下网上,没发现可用的类似点击器,花了半小时,只好自己动手编了个小脚本了,一试用,效果还不错,灌票又开始了啦!
       支持肖传国一方的也开始了灌票,但速度好慢,可能是不会编脚本,或“工具”不顺手,后来的几天,我的那位不知名的“同盟军”好像也有了个脚本,我们两个人一起灌票,速度快多了,这样一直灌票到光明网撤了投票为止,有点遗憾的是最终没能赶上支持肖传国的投票总票数。。。。。。
       (未完待续)
      
      故事还没结束,今天晚上去《光明网》新开了一个投票项目

  30. Report this comment #15581

    Amy Tang said:

    Sorry that I need to re-post it.

    To The Authors of the "Open letter in support of Chuan-Guo Xiao:

    We are a group of America University students who understand both English and Chinese and who have read your letter to support your "internationally respected surgeon-scientist" "who was respected worldwide for his integrity". After reading your open letter, we have studied what Chuan Guo Xiao has written in his blogs.

    I am not sure which countries you were educated. We would like to tell you that in China as well as in America, "Integrity" is defined as "honesty that can be trusted, and strength and firmness of principle".
    After reading Xiao’s blog (Xiao's blog on sciencenet, http://210.75.240.142/u/XiaoCG/), we see Xiao is anything but honest. To show a few examples:

    (1) The NIH $230,0000 project "SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF NERVE REROUTING FOR TREATING NEUROGENIC BLADDER IN SPINA" led by Beaumont was translated in Chinese by Xiao as "NIH AUTHORIZING WIDESPERADING XIAO'S REFLEX PROCEDURE IN AMERICA".
    (2) One week after he had hired someone to attack a journalist and a writer in China and had asked his paid criminal to never contact him again, Xiao wrote in his blog "I WILL REPORT TO BEIJING POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT FANG Zhou Zi MADE A FRAUD CASE ABOUT HIS ATTACK".

    You admired that: "Dr. Xiao eventually took the courageous step of moving from animal research to human studies". Yes. He was more than courageous to make about 2000 poor Chinese patients to pay for his study. The four goals of his life are to "do good deeds, make money, revenge, and shoot rabbits". He has achieved two of them obviously: to make money and to revenge. When you were writing about his "humanitarian contributions", did you mean his human study paid by the patients? or his use of the money he earned from patients or government to pay the $10000 RMB to the criminals to attack?

    We found Xiao seems to be a skilled surgeon, but not a well educated and trained scientist. He claimed that he is so great that he would be awarded with a Nobel Prize in 5-6 years. Ridiculously, after many years living in America he does not know the difference between "article" and "publication", nor did he know the difference between "journalism" and "original research paper".

    In short, our study has found Xiao is a dishonest, revengeful, and not well-educated person. We disagree with you that "The Chinese people and government should be proud of Dr. Xiao". We think you moral standard is significantly lower that the majority of Chinese. In the first day of our classes, we were taught the honor code by our professors. We find the necessity to remind you, professors and scholars, to be responsible and honest. It is not great to lie, to brag, or to attack.

    Xiao's supporters have posted your open letter in Baidu.com. By search "open letter in support Xiao" you can find the letter in many places. With your definition of "greatness" and "humanitarian contributions", Xiao’s supporters have been frequently writing threat of "death" to those who thinks Xiao should be punished, and they seem to have been proud of Xiao like what you asked them to.

    We hope you have the courage to repent. We hope you apologize to Chinese. If you do, you can earn back the respect from your students and children.

    We do not know whether you would be as revengeful as Xiao since many Xiao supporter turned out to be Xiao alike. So, we decided to not post our names here. Also, we would like to let you know that we are not related to Dr. Fang and Mr Fang.

  31. Report this comment #15582

    Amy Tang said:

    Sorry that I need to re-post it.

    To The Authors of the "Open letter in support of Chuan-Guo Xiao:

    We are a group of America University students who understand both English and Chinese and who have read your letter to support your "internationally respected surgeon-scientist" "who was respected worldwide for his integrity". After reading your open letter, we have studied what Chuan Guo Xiao has written in his blogs.

    I am not sure which countries you were educated. We would like to tell you that in China as well as in America, "Integrity" is defined as "honesty that can be trusted, and strength and firmness of principle".
    After reading Xiao’s blog (Xiao's blog on sciencenet, http://210.75.240.142/u/XiaoCG/), we see Xiao is anything but honest. To show a few examples:

    (1) The NIH $230,0000 project "SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF NERVE REROUTING FOR TREATING NEUROGENIC BLADDER IN SPINA" led by Beaumont was translated in Chinese by Xiao as "NIH AUTHORIZING WIDESPERADING XIAO'S REFLEX PROCEDURE IN AMERICA".
    (2) One week after he had hired someone to attack a journalist and a writer in China and had asked his paid criminal to never contact him again, Xiao wrote in his blog "I WILL REPORT TO BEIJING POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT FANG Zhou Zi MADE A FRAUD CASE ABOUT HIS ATTACK".

    You admired that: "Dr. Xiao eventually took the courageous step of moving from animal research to human studies". Yes. He was more than courageous to make about 2000 poor Chinese patients to pay for his study. The four goals of his life are to "do good deeds, make money, revenge, and shoot rabbits". He has achieved two of them obviously: to make money and to revenge. When you were writing about his "humanitarian contributions", did you mean his human study paid by the patients? or his use of the money he earned from patients or government to pay the $10000 RMB to the criminals to attack?

    We found Xiao seems to be a skilled surgeon, but not a well educated and trained scientist. He claimed that he is so great that he would be awarded with a Nobel Prize in 5-6 years. Ridiculously, after many years living in America he does not know the difference between "article" and "publication", nor did he know the difference between "journalism" and "original research paper".

    In short, our study has found Xiao is a dishonest, revengeful, and not well-educated person. We disagree with you that "The Chinese people and government should be proud of Dr. Xiao". We think you moral standard is significantly lower that the majority of Chinese. In the first day of our classes, we were taught the honor code by our professors. We find the necessity to remind you, professors and scholars, to be responsible and honest. It is not great to lie, to brag, or to attack.

    Xiao's supporters have posted your open letter in Baidu.com. By search "open letter in support Xiao" you can find the letter in many places. With your definition of "greatness" and "humanitarian contributions", Xiao’s supporters have been frequently writing threat of "death" to those who thinks Xiao should be punished, and they seem to have been proud of Xiao like what you asked them to.

    We hope you have the courage to repent. We hope you apologize to Chinese. If you do, you can earn back the respect from your students and children.

    We do not know whether you would be as revengeful as Xiao since many Xiao supporter turned out to be Xiao alike. So, we decided to not post our names here. Also, we would like to let you know that we are not related to Dr. Fang and Mr Fang.

  32. Report this comment #15639

    Alex Sun Alex Sun said:

    Amy and the students who wrote the above note:

    A few corrections.

    (1) Chuan Guo Xiao paid 100,000 RMB instead of 10,000 RMB to hire the criminal.
    (2) Xiao and his hospital performed about 2000 surgeries for the purpose of money, not for human study, because many of the patients who paid 31,000-35,000RMB were never contacted by the hospital after they had the surgery and left the hospital.
    (3) Professors are not necessarily more honorable than students. It is obvious that many of the 31 people wrote the letter for the sake of their funding and publications. They are certainly the same kind of man as Chuan Guo Xiao.

    Also, I think
    (1) Xiao and his hospital should give back the patients all the money they took from them.
    (2) The 31 authors of the open letter should apologize to Chinese.

Subscribe to comments

Additional data