欢迎! 登陆 注册


Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (5785 查看)

November 09, 2012 08:46AM
Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

On November 6, 2012, Nature announced that Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi) was one of the two inaugural winners of the John Maddox Prize. According to Nature, Fang’s achievement was “root out the fakers” in China’s scientific community. Nature also gave a few examples showing what he had done:

“For example, Fang called into question DNA supplements that were widely advertised as a means to rejuvenate the tired, the pregnant and the old. Eventually, the government issued warnings about the supplements. Fang seemed to especially relish smacking down powerful or popular scientists. He even challenged official support of traditional Chinese medicine. But his targets fought back, in one case with particular hostility. In the summer of 2010, thugs hired by a urologist attacked Fang with a hammer and, according to Fang, tried to kill him. Fang had previously challenged not only the efficacy of a surgical procedure developed by the urologist, but also his CV.” (Nature Editorial. John Maddox prize. Nature 491,160.)

Shameless cover-up

Nature didn’t tell the world that Fang’s initial motivation to “question DNA supplements” was to revenge on a Chinese academician, who showed his support to a Harvard scientist when Fang attacked that person and his new book, apparently because the subject of that book was in the same area as a book Fang was “writing,” by plagiarizing other people’s ideas and words, and pirating images and figures. (Yi Ming. Why Fang Zhouzi busts nutrient nucleic acids?方舟子为什么要打“核酸营养品”?》. Note: the original article is in Chinese if its Chinese title has hyperlink, it is in English if its English title has hyperlink.)

The covers of Dr. Wu Bolin’s Human Body Revolution (left) and Fang’s Disillusionment of Longevity
Dr. Wu’s book was published in 2000, Fang’s book in 2002. Fang’s book has 134 pages, contains 145 pictures, none of these pictures was made by Fang himself, yet, none of them had source acknowledgement. At least 2,500 Chinese characters in the book were plagiarized.
(Xin Ge. MSU PHD plagiarizes WSU Professor.)

Nature didn’t tell the world that before Fang “challenged official support of traditional Chinese medicine,” he was the biggest traditional Chinese medicine book seller in the United States and Canada, and his “challenge to TCM” started right after his online bookstore was forced to close, because someone reported to U. S. government that Fang was using his “not-for-profit” website, the New Threads, to conduct “for-profit” activities, which, of course, was illegal, even criminal. The fact is, as late as 2006, Fang was using the New Threads to sell TCM supplements. (Yi Ming. Investigating Fang’s anti-TCM motives by looking at the history of Hanlin Online Bookstore.《从汉林网上书城的兴亡看方舟子反中医的动机》).

Nature didn’t tell the world that Fang’s challenge to TCM was so ignorant and ridiculous, that he has to write by plagiarizing, cheating, and robbing, literally. (Yi Ming. The four big secrets of Fang Zhouzi’s Criticize TCM: stealing, burglarizing, robbing, and cheating.《〈批评中医〉的四大秘密:偷、盗、抢、骗》).

Nature didn’t tell the world that before “thugs hired by a urologist attacked Fang with a hammer and, according to Fang, tried to kill him,” that urologist, including his wife and his mentor, had been harassed and attacked by Fang and his thugs, on the internet and in print media, for nearly ten years. Of course Nature won’t tell how the feud between the two started. Let me tell you: It started when Xiao reported one of Fang’s many plagiarism cases, 94 in total and still counting, to Science magazine in 2001. (Yi Ming. A list of the facts that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is a victim of long term character assassination and framing by Fang Zhouzi and his gang of New Threads.)

Nature didn’t tell the world that Fang’s challenges to “the efficacy of a surgical procedure developed by the urologist, but also his CV” were nothing but revenge. The “surgical procedure” was approved by NIH of the United States, and promoted by Chinese government; his CV was neither “padded,” as Nature implied, nor faked. The fact is, that urologist, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, is a well-respected scientist and neurosurgeon, both in China and in the world. In 2006, he offered 50,000 RMB to anybody in the world who could point out and demonstrate one fraudulent entry in his CV. So far, nobody, including Fang himself, has yet come out to collect the money.

One may wonder, how could Nature know all of these? Let me tell you how: right after Nature published an article in Sept. 2010, Brawl in Beijing, which was used as the sole supporting document for selecting Fang to be one of the first winners of John Maddox prize, I wrote a letter to Nature (see the appendix), telling them everything I knew about the Brawl. To my surprise, the author of the article, Mr. David Cyranoski, didn’t challenge the authenticity of the facts I provided, instead, he tried every way he could think of to defend his one-sided, biased story. So I knew he, as well as Nature, didn’t care much for the truth, since Nature’s news editor, Dr. Mark Peplow, didn’t ask much either.

Also, since the end of 2010, China Academic Integrity Review, a website built “to safeguard Chinese scholars’ human dignity, academic reputation, and legal rights from harassment, intimidation, threats, and terror by a certain transnational internet group,” has convicted Fang in 5 individual plagiarism cases. And the verdicts (Links: The 1st Verdict, The 2nd Verdict, The 3rd Verdict, The 4th Verdict, The 5th Verdict) have been sent to Nature whenever they were made public. So, we do know Nature knows. What we don’t know is, why Nature pretends he doesn’t know?

The five “Plagiarism Certificates” issued by AIR-China to Fang Zhouzi

Nature was notified in each case

(to be continued)

Appendix: A letter sent to Nature to challenge its fairness on Sept. 30, 2010

The screen image of the email I sent to Nature on Sept. 30, 2010
The complete content, in its original form, is shown below.
Note: I have been requesting permission from Mr. David Cyranoski to make the communications between us public. So far, I have not received his response yet.

on Cyranoski’s recent report

Sept. 30, 2010


Dear Nature,

I am deeply troubled by Mr. David Cyranoski’s recent report, Brawl in Beijing, (Nature 467, 511.) The article contains several factual errors, for examples, it gives wrong website address, gives a wrong name of one of the sources he cited. However, more importantly, some key facts are missing in his report.

The Feud between Drs. Fang and Xiao started long time ago: ten years before the “Brawl in Beijing”, five years before “Xiao's clash with” Fang. The fact is, in November 2000, a few months after Fang started his so called “fraud busting” crusade, Xiao, using a web ID Hun professor, on Fang’s website expressed a different opinion on Fang’s certain activities. Eight months later, Xiao wrote a lengthy article criticizing Fang, the title was: Reflections and Criticism on Fang’s ‘Academic Fraud Busting’”. The article hurt Fang so much that he wrote six posts to refute it, and a few days later, he issued a “wanted” on his website for Hun professor’s true identity. The matter getting even worse when Xiao, in October, 2001, reported to Science magazine that Fang plagiarized a Science paper for one of his so called “science popularization essays”, which was published in a prominent Chinese newspaper. Fang immediately re-issue the “wanted”.

There are numerous evidences showing that the fight between the two is about revenge, and having nothing to do with science or patients’ well-bing. For example, in 2003, Fang suddenly started a smearing campaign against a Chinese scholar, Dr. Yao Xuebiao. And the campaign ended abruptly when Fang found out that Yao was not Hun professor. Fang didn’t find Hun professor’s identity until Sept., 2005, and the smearing campaign against Xiao started immediately, just as most people who knew Fang thought. In about one month’s duration after Xiao’s exposure, Fang had 38 articles against Xiao published on his website, all of them, except one by Fang himself, i.e. the “essay in Beijing Sci–Tech Report”, were written by either anonymous or pseudonym authors. It was later found out that the 10 articles without author’s name were by Fang himself, and he even used a pseudonym Shuizhonghua (“sailing in water”) authored a series of 6 defamatory articles.

Since Sept. 2005, the war between Xiao and Fang only stopped once, between January 2008 to early August, 2009. Why the fight stopped? Because Fang lost his final court battle to Xiao in Wuhan, and he was supposed to pay Xiao a punitive fine of 30,000 Chinese Yuan, plus a public apology. Fang vowed to do neither, he simply stopped attacking Xiao, hoping the matter would disappear. However, in August, 2009, Wuhan’s court sent people to Beijing to enforce the judgment, taking more than 40,000 Chinese Yuan (interest and other fees included) away from the bank account of Fang’s wife (Fang did not have a bank account at that time). Guess what? The attack on Xiao re-started immediately.

The numbers of anti-Xiao articles each month on New Threads, Fang’s website
(Based upon New Threads “Collection of Xiao’s incidence”, [www.xys.org])

Just 3 days ago, I posted the following two questions on Science magazine’s website:

“If the fight between you and Xiao is really about science, about the well-being of the patients, then why did you hide your secretive and illegal investigation results for more than two years, from 2007 to August 2009? And why did you reveal the results immediately, right after Wuhan court enforced its judgment by taking away more than 40,000 Yuan from your wife’s bank account in August 2009?” (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html)

Even though Fang watches that thread closely, he dare not come out to answer them. All he did was sending out his followers to threaten me, spreading rumors against me, and asking “the moderator do something” about me, obviously asking I be banned on posting.

I have been studying Fang and his gang for more than three years, and on the day of Xiao’s arrest, Sept, 21, 2010, I posted one of my books of my study, The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, online for free downloading (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bz7FQgH_VoaTZGYxZTY0MmQtNTBmYi00NDZkLTk0MjQtNTZmNzBkMjZlODk3&hl=zh_CN). Based upon this book, the website of Guang Ming Daily, the largest newspaper in China for intellectuals, made a webpage, the title is: Reflections on Fang and Xiao’s Ten Year Bloody Hatred.


Dr. Fang is a master of manipulating public opinions, and one of his tools is using his appearance on Western media, especially on the prestigious ones like Science and Nature, for his own good. As a matter of fact, Fang counts the times he have been reported by Science, and uses that as a leverage to pressure China’s courts, media, and any people who have a different opinion about him. To most Chinese people, Fang is some sort of “Science certified” fraud-fighting Hero. But the truth is, he is the biggest fraud I have ever seen.

I don’t expect you to believe anything I just said. What I expect for you is, download my book, asking a person who is fluent in Chinese to read it, and see what I wrote is believable. I also put an appendix below for your quick reference.

Since Fang is an extremely vicious revenger, I request that my real name not be revealed to any Chinese people, please use my pen name Yi Ming when you have to mention me to them.



Xin Ge, Ph. D.


A list of the facts that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is a victim of long term character assassination and framing by Fang Zhouzi and his gang of New Threads

By Yi Ming

(detailed documentation of evidence is provided in my yet to be published book, in Chinese, The Feud Between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo. The book contains about a half million Chinese characters, and provides nearly 1,000 references. Downloading website: [ishare.iask.sina.com.cn])

1. The enmity between Fang and Xiao started in late 2000, when Xiao, using a pen name “Hun professor”, expressed his opinion against Fang’s activities to certain Chinese oversea scholars. In July, 2001, Xiao published an article, which pointed out the nature of Fang’s whistle blowing is for his own personal gain, such as fame and monetary profit. In October, 2001, Xiao reported to Science magazine that one of Fang’s articles published in a prominent Chinese newspaper was a plagiarized version of a Science paper by a Princeton group.

2. Xiao’s activities against Fang, who is extremely sensitive to other people’s criticism, made him at the top of Fang’s enemy list. (The list is secret to public, of course, but on New Threads’ homepage, there are two lists: Judges Who Bend the law, and Bad Journalists. The former contains about 20 judge’s names, the only reason for them being listed is because they have made judgments against Fang. The Bad Journalists contains about 70 names. Again, the reason for them being “bad” is because they have written reports or articles which contain something Fang dislikes.) In August of 2001, Fang issued a “wanted”, asking his followers to provide information so he could identify Hun professor’s identity. Two months later, right after the Science incidence, Fang issued another one. At least once, Fang publicly encouraged his followers to trace Hun professor’s internet IP.

3. In early 2003, Fang mistakenly thought another Chinese oversea scholar as Hun professor. So he started a smearing campaign against that person, both on his website and in Chinese media. As soon as he knew that person was not Hun professor, the smearing activities stopped abruptly.

4. In September of 2005, Fang finally knew that Xiao was Hun professor. In about a month, Fang had more than 3 dozens of articles against Xiao published on New Threads, all except one were written by either anonymous or pseudonym authors. It is later found out, Fang himself was among the latter group, using a pseudonym Shuizhonghua (“sailing in water”), he published at least 6 defamatory articles.

5. In September 21, 2005, Fang published an article in Beijing Science and Technology News, criticizing Xiao was a person who “straddles two boats”, meaning Xiao was holding two full time jobs simultaneously. He also accused Xiao boasting, to his colleagues in China, his academic achievements in the United States. Xiao sued Fang in Wuhan, China, and in July, 2006, Xiao won his lawsuit. Fang appealed, but the upper court upheld the primary court’s judgment.

6. During the time frame of the lawsuit, which spanned from October, 2005, to February, 2007, Fang and his followers continued their verbal abuse of Xiao, his family, and his Master’s thesis advisor, who was a prominent urological surgeon in China, and was more than 90 years old at that time. Even the primary court judge, who is a female, was repeatedly abused by gross language.

7. Right after the primary judgment, Fang plotted and personally participated in an open letter scheme, hoping to use it to pressure the higher court. Later, people found out that some signees of the open letter used fake names, fake affiliations, some even non-existent at all, and someone didn’t know their names were on the letter. At least ten signees had openly asked Fang to remove their names, and Fang refused to do so for every one of them. The open letter is still on New Threads homepage.

8. At the same time of plotting the open letter campaign, Fang also organized two money collecting organizations, one in China, one in the United States. Both organizations claim their very purpose of existence is to help Fang fight Xiao in courts, either in China or in the US. As a matter of fact, the Chinese organization is completely illegal, because there are specific laws in China prohibiting people from doing so, and the one in the US used false document to gain its federal 501c(3) status.

9. In September, 2006, Fang asked his personal friend Rao Yi, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote a malicious letter against Xiao, which was published on New Threads. Xiao sued Rao and New Threads in the federal court in New York. Rao settled the case outside court room by paying Xiao $10,000.

10. In February, 2007, a delivery company delivered to Fang at his Beijing office a package of US federal court documents of Xiao’s lawsuit against New Threads. Fang reported this incidence to public as someone sending him a life threatening letter. At that time Fang was promoting his new book, which criticizes Chinese health products, so he repeatedly hinted to the news media and public that the “threatening letter” were from health products manufacturers or related interest groups. He later admitted the “threatening letter” and court document delivery are the same incidence.

11. Right after losing the court fight against Xiao in Wuhan, Fang’s personal lawyer and friend Peng Jian began his secretive and apparently illegal investigation of Xiao’s procedure. Peng admitted later that neither his aides nor himself had received any training in biology and medicine. The investigation was supported by one of Fang’s two funds, and lasted until 2010. Its main conclusion is that Xiao’s procedure has a 0% success rate.

12. During 2008, and before July, 2009, Fang and his followers stopped attacking Xiao almost completely. It was found out later, that was because Fang was hoping he would not have to pay the punitive damage and legal fees the court had awarded Xiao. In August, 2009, the Wuhan court bailiffs went to Beijing, and enforced the law, taking away more than 40,000 Chinese Yuan from the bank account of Fang’s wife. Almost immediately, Fang’s attack against Xiao, as well as against Wuhan’s court, the judges, started all over again. He and his lawyer even lured two patients who received Xiao’s procedure to sue the hospital.

13. From October, 2009, Fang and his friends in Chinese media launched a campaign to smear Xiao and Xiao’s procedure. 2 newspapers and 2 magazines participated in the campaign, which lasted more than 6 months, and published at least 14 articles. The main theme of the campaign was to disclose the investigation results cooked by Fang and Peng, that is, Xiao’s procedure is not only ineffective, but also causing disability. None of the 4 media conducted their own independent investigation. Their purpose, as indicated in an editorial by Science News magazine, is to fix Xiao as “China’s Hwang Woo-Suk.”

14. The fact is, Science News, the major campaign participant, which initiated the campaign and published 9 of the 14 articles, has an extraordinary close tie to Fang: its chief editor Jia Hepeng, who was a contributor to Science, is a firm believer of Fang. The executive chief editor, Fang Xuanchan, not related to Fang Zhouzi, is a very close personal friend of his, their friendship started as early as 2004. Fang Xuanchan later, after he was attacked personally in Beijing, admitted to public that he “plotted” the campaign, obviously suggesting that Xiao was behind the attack.

15. Besides Science News, the other participants of the campaign are interrelated: the Chinese News Weekly is the old employer of Fang Xuanchang’s, who started his Science News job right after the start of the campaign; Beijing Science and Technology News was Fang Zhouzi’s old employer, they were co-defendants in another Xiao’s lawsuit in Wuhan. Also, one of the major expert witnesses appeared in many of the 14 articles, Xiaolong Ji, who has no training in neither urology nor neurosciences, is also a close friend of both Fangs’.

16. In November, 2009, after Peng’s investigation appeared in Chinese media, Fang thought their investigation results were “washed” clean, so he engineered another campaign against Xiao, sending his followers to America’s BBS like [sci.rutgers.edu], and [spinabifidaconnection.com], to spread rumors about Xiao’s Procedure. They even named the campaign with a military term, “Advancing Across the Pacific”. Their activities were either blocked or banned by the BBS owners or operators.

17. In February, 2010, Fang pressured his followers to send an anonymous complaint letter to various US government agencies, accusing Xiao falsified his research results, along with many malicious personal attacks. NIH’s ORI declined to “assist” them, due to “the absence of specific allegations of possible research misconduct.”

18. In June, 2010, Fang Xuanchang was attacked in Beijing by two people. Fang Zhouzi immediately suggested to Chinese media that Xiao might be involved.

19. In August, 2010, Fang Zhouzi reported to Beijing police and public that he himself was attacked by two people. His lawyer Peng immediately told media that Xiao was a suspect. Three weeks later, Sept. 21, 2010, Xiao was arrested by Beijing’s police in Shanghai, just after his returning from his academic trip to South America.
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature.pdf (496 KB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (5785 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3440 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (3930 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3116 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (4670 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (3831 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (3662 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3066 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3669 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3173 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4431 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4232 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4167 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4255 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (3934 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2259 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (2764 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (2804 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4003 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (5971 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (9626 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.