欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4824 查看)

January 29, 2013 12:16AM
【Note: The PDF file is more reader-friendly. Click the title to open it.】


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


Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA


【I apologize for the lengthiness of this letter, but I don’t think I have other options. Fang’s evilness and shamelessness are hidden in details, and they can only be revealed by detailed analysis. Therefore, if you are seeking for truth, read on; otherwise, stop here.】

Fang’s Law

On March 26, 2006, while Chinese media and science and technology communities were closely watching the development of Hanxin scandal, Fang launched a sudden attack on Dr. Wei Yuquan, a professor and vice president at Sichuan University. The case represents Fang’s last attempt to establish himself as China’s top science cop, and his effort failed completely.


Major characters: Si Lusheng, Wei Yuquan, Fang Zhouzi


The Wei Yuquan Incidence

In 2000, Dr. Wei Yuquan published a paper in Nature Medicine (NM)[1]. The paper established Wei’s academic status in China, he was elected an academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in 2003, and became a vice president of Sichuan University in 2005.

In 2001, while reviewing a grant proposal by Wei, Si Lusheng, a professor of immunology at Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU), read Wei’s NM paper. According to what he told People’s Daily in 2006, Si found neither the proposal nor the paper believable or reliable[2]. Even though Si strongly objected the proposal, Wei got the funding. Around 2003, Si found another Wei’s paper published in Chinese Journal of Oncology (CJO)[3], and he was disappointed again. He then wrote comments on each of Wei’s papers, and sent them to the corresponding journals.

The editors in both journals forwarded Si’s comments to Wei, and Wei responded to each of them professionally[4]. However, neither of the two exchanges was published. According to Si, NM canceled the publishing plan after his request for postponement, and CJO asked them to discuss the issues privately, because the issues were too technical[5]. In sum, till 2003, the dispute between the two looked academic and professional in nature.

However, the dispute took a sharp turn since then. On June 3, 2004, the New Threads published an article by a person under a pseudonym “dajia000,” attacking a person named Han Suxia at XJTU. In the article, the author also attacked Wei:

“In fact, Han Suxia is not the only fraud case in China. Think about last year’s Academician Wei Yuquan who published faked papers in Chinese Journal of Oncology and Nature Medicine, then you can imagine how corrupted the Chinese academia is!”[6]

In front the article, Fang added his own note:

“The incidence of Sichuan University professor Wei Yuquan who fabricated papers and was elected a CAS academician, mentioned in this article, will be exposed in another article.”[7]

According to Fang, Si contacted him via email in June, 2004[8]. And according to Wei, Si had been attacking him behind his back in multiple occasions, including in the classrooms of XJTU[9]. Somehow, Fang didn’t publish the article as he promised, and Si’s attack on Wei remained private until March 26, 2006.

On August 18, 2005, for some unknown reason, Si wrote an open letter to CAS, accusing Wei of fabrication, practice pseudoscience, anti-science, and fake science. His defiance to Wei was clearly shown in this paragraph:

“Wei’s theory of xenogeneic vaccine treatment for tumor is represented in the paper published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Anti-tumor immune response against mouse melanoma to xenogeneic vaccination, and the paper published in Nature Medicine, Immunotherapy of the tumors with xenogeneic endothelial cells as a vaccine. However, any person with a little bit of common knowledge in experimental oncology, after careful analysis, could easily tell that these papers were totally fabricated anti-science fallacy.”[10]

The open letter was neither sent to CAS, nor made public until March 26, 2006, when the letter was published on the New Threads. Fang put a note in front of Si’s letter, in which he wrote:

“In 2003[7], I received Professor Si Lusheng’s comment sent to Nature Medicine, but following Professor Si’s advice, I didn’t publish it. I am very happy that Professor Si is willing to make the incidence public now. I believe that Professor Si’s allegation against Academician Wei Yuquan that his papers were fabricated is true.”[11]

On March 29, 2006, three days after the publication of Si’s open letter, Wei sent Fang his responses to Si’s original two comments, both written in 2003, asking Fang to publish them. Fang did publish Wei’s responses on the New Threads[12], but he didn’t publish them in his blog on sina.com, another important battleground of the case ─ Si’s open letter generated more than 30 thousand hits there[13]. Two days later, March 31, Wei sent Fang another letter, explaining in detail why he visited Si in Xi’an in 2003, because Si implied in the open letter that Wei tried to bribe him[14].

Fang’s direct participation in the fight against Wei started on March 31, 2006. In 5 days, Fang published 4 of his own articles on the New Threads and his blog, trying to demonstrate that Wei indeed fabricated his papers. Fang’s such attempt failed miserably, so from April 8, 2006, Fang started accusing Wei of padding his CV. On April 13, CPC’s official newspaper People’s Daily published its investigation report[2]. Two days later, Sichuan University exonerated Wei[15].

So, Wei Yuquan incidence is basically a duplication of Qiu Xiaoqing incidence which occurred about three months ago: an old academic dispute developed into a bloody internet melee, and when the initiator was fought off by the defendant, Fang would join the accuser to continue the fight. And Fang’s tactic in both incidences was identical.

As mentioned above, Fang believed that Wei committed academic fraud as early as in June, 2004, and Si’s open letter to CAS was written in August, 2005. However, Fang waited 21 months, till March, 2006, to make the allegation public. Why? Considering Fang’s futile attempt to discredit the journalists who were investigating the Hanxin case (see Part X of the letter), and his failed attempt to fix Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing, another professor at Sichuan University, as a fake scientist (see Part IX of the letter), the attack on Dr. Wei looks more like a calculated and plotted move: distract public’s attention on Hanxin scandal, and pressure Sichuan University to presecute Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing.

Fang’s Fight: Round I──3D Geometry

On March 31, 2006, Fang published his first article against Wei: Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated? In the article, Fang targeted at Wei’s CJO paper, and brought forward three evidences to demonstrate his points. Fang’s first two evidences were based on Si’s allegations in the open letter, which had been answered by Wei in 2003. Fang’s “original” discovery was this:

“Even if we accept Academician Wei’s explanation in his letter, e. g. the first day on the time axis of the figure indicates the first day of vaccine treatment, instead of tumor inoculation, then an even bigger problem arises. From the vertical axis we can tell that the size of the tumor at the initial point was zero or near zero. However, this contradicts to what stated in the Experimental Method: the vaccine treatment starts after the ‘subcutaneous palpable and tumor nodules in mice reached 3 mm in diameter,’ because according to the formula provided in the paper, the tumor size should be about 50 mm3, it position could be clearly shown in the figure (equivalent to the tumor size in the control group at day 5), rather than close to zero. May I ask Academician Wei, how do you explain this?”[16]


The figure in which Fang found “bigger problem”
The red dot near the origin is what Fang talked about.


Yes, American Ph.D. Fang believes that a tumor of 3 mm in diameter could have a volume of 50 mm3. If Fang had a basic knowledge of three - dimensional geometry, he should have known that the largest possible volume of such a tumor could not exceed 27 mm3, the product of the 3-D scales; and for a globular or irregular shaped tumor, the product should be multiplied by a factor about 0.5. So, instead of questioning Wei’s figure, Fang should have questioned the accuracy of “the formula provided in the paper.” The funny thing is, the formula mistake had been already pointed out in Si’s open letter[17], but Fang seemed unaware of it. So you know how negligent and stupid the fraud fighter was when he fought fraud.

Fang’s Fight: Round II──Western Blot Expert

On the same day Fang published his Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated, Wei sent a letter to Fang, explaining in detail that “the formula provided in the paper” was a print error, and no professionals could have ever used that erroneous formula to calculate the volume of tumor. Wei also gave Fang some advice:

“After this incidence, I suggest that when dealing with problems in very specialized field, Mr. Fang should first listen more to the experts in the field, and second, before verifying the details, not rush to announce on the internet the conclusive statements like ‘someone’s paper is a fraud, someone has fabricated data,’ which is not conducive to academic discussion and academic fraud fighting.”[18]

Sounds reasonable, right? Not so to Fang. Instead of publishing Wei’s reply on his New Threads, Fang wrote another article to counter attack Wei’s reply, Reply to Academician Wei Yuquan’s Reply, and attached Wei’s reply as an appendix to his article. To Wei’s above suggestions, Fang replied:

“This is implying that I am not specialized (to discuss the issues). Someone always use ‘specialty’ as a shield whenever their academic achievements are questioned. It is normal. However, this tactic won’t work in this case. Academician Wei’s papers used techniques in biochemistry and molecular biology, in these areas, I can be counted as an expert, and in certain sub-areas, such as immune-blotting techniques, I might be more specialized than Academician Wei.”[19]

However, the true colors of Fang’s proudest expertise in immune-blotting techniques were soon revealed.

Obviously knowing Fang won’t publish his reply, Wei posted it on the forum of the New Threads himself[18]. One of Fang’s followers, BIGBEN, then asked Wei for the original data:

“Academician Wei, please show us the original images of the western blot in the two papers (PNAS and Nature Medicine), whether they are X-ray films or phosphoimager pictures.”[20]

Fang, the self-claimed Western blot expert, apparently trying to salvage his humiliation from the formula incidence, asked BIGBEN:

“X-ray films? You want him to use isotope labeling?”[21]

Yes, in 2006, Dr. Lard was still not aware of chemluminescence technique, arguably one of the most, if not the most, fundamental and widely used immune-blotting techniques. And such an ignorant still has the courage to pretend as an expert. Even his followers were surprised by their chief’s ignorance. BIGBEN teased Fang:

“Lao Fang, you may have been away from the bench for too long, it is time to do a sabbatical away from dajia. I will offer space in my lab, but no pay :-).”[22]

Fang’s Fight: Round III──The Largest Flaw

In his Reply to Academician Wei Yuquan’s Reply, Fang complained that Wei didn’t answer his other questions. So, on April 3, 2006, Wei posted another reply on Fang’s forum[23]. Again, Fang wrote a counter attack article first, then published Wei’s reply as an appendix to that article. Here is the first paragraph of Fang’s The Second Reply to Academician Wei Yuquan’s Reply:

“The new reply sent to me by Academician Wei is much better than the previous one, it basically answered every question I had asked. His reply is attached below. I’ll first comment on the issues located in the second half of his letter, then comment the key issue, which I believe is the largest flaw in Academician Wei’s reply, even a layman can tell that Academician Wei couldn’t justify his own explanations.”[24]

Remember the Double Jeopardy trick Fang played against Professor Qiu Xiaoqing? As long as the accused defends for himself, Fang will for sure find some loopholes in the defense statement and keep questioning, until the defendant is exhausted.

So, what was the largest flaw Fang found in Wei’s reply? As shown in the figure above, the tumors in the control and experiment groups grew at different rates almost right after the vaccine treatment. Fang’s question was, how could the vaccine was so powerful and effective? Wei’s answer was, he had noticed the problem before, but he doesn’t have a conclusive answer to it. A plausible explanation was that they used complete Freund's adjuvant. Wei admitted the phenomenon should be further studied.

To a normal person, Wei’s answer sound acceptable, even though not satisfactory. Many unexplainable phenomena could pop up in an experiment, and finding the mechanisms underlying these phenomena is both the initial motivation and final goal of scientific research. Only a person like Fang wants to use these unexplainable phenomena as his weapons to accuse other people of fraud. And yes, that was the largest flaw he could find, and that was the largest evidence Fang thinks Wei fabricated his data. As a person pointed out, such data had no influence on Wei’s conclusion, and the differences were so small, it is almost meaningless to discuss it in detail[25]. So, the largest flaw Fang found was nothing but a bluff.

Fang’s Fight: Round IV──Wei’s Adjuvant

The weirdest episode of Wei Yuquan drama occurred on April 4, 2006, when Fang published his fourth article against Wei, which was entitled The Magical Tumor Inhibitor “Wei’s Adjuvant.” However, in less than 8 hours after its publication, Fang modified the webpage, changed its title to Second Explanation on Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated, and issued the following statement:

“The original title of the article was The Wonderful Tumor Inhibitor ‘Wei’s Adjuvant.’ Some contents contained mistakes. The figure 3 in the PNAS paper didn’t show the time of tumor growth, which is a little weird, so it couldn’t be used to compare with academician Wei’s paper. The one week time originally mentioned in the article should be the time point of tumor inoculation. In the paper, the authors didn’t use a proposition when mentioning time, and didn’t mark the tumor growth time, so I misread. I have already deleted the related paragraphs, and I am sorry for that. However, my criticism against Academician Wei’s misuse of literature is still valid.”[26]

So, exactly what mistakes did Fang make in the first place?

The story started from Wei’s response to Si and Fang’s allegations. Wei cited many literatures as supporting evidence, which seems reasonable to everyone else except for Fang. According to Fang, if a person gives so many references in an article or a paper, his purpose is to show off his eruditeness and to scare off laymen[27]. To demonstrate that Wei has such a purpose when he cites so many references when replying to their questions, Fang checked one of them, and concluded that Wei’s reference actually could not be used to support his viewpoints.

Fang’s finding was based on Si’s open letter to CAS, in which Si accused Wei of fabricating the CJO paper, and one of his reasons for the accusation was that the B16 melanoma in C57 mice in the control group grew too slow. According to Si, the tumors should grow to 4,000-6,000 mm3 in 20 days, but in Wei’s paper, after 30 days they grew only about 500 mm3. So, Si suspected that Wei didn’t conduct the experiment at all[28]. Wei gave several explanations to Si’s questioning in 2003, one of them was that a paper published in PNAS by researchers at The Scripps Research Institute showed similar growth rate[29]. Si didn’t question Wei further, but Fang, pretending to be an expert, checked the paper, and found that the results shown in its figure 4 do look similar to Wei’s. However, Fang claimed that the similarity was invalid, because the Scripps group used SCID, not C57, mice, “the experimental materials were completely different, so the results are not comparable.”[30] Yes, the Accuser Fang is also Justice Fang, he has the power to declare whether a similarity is valid or not, and Dr. Lard believes that SCID and C57 mice are “completely different.”

Of course Fang knew his claim was nothing but a layman’s personal opinion, even if it could be accepted by some people, it is not enough to prove Wei had cheated. So he looked further. What he found was, the figure 3 of the paper showed the growth of B16 cells in C57 mice, which is comparable to Wei’s results. According to Fang, that figure showed that one week after inoculation with B16 cells, the tumor in the control group reached the volume of about 900 mm3, while in Wei’s paper, the tumors in the similar treatment group were only 50 mm3. So, “the PNAS paper cited by Wei not only couldn’t be used to support Wei, instead, it further supports Professor Si.”[31]

Also according to Fang, the difference in the growth rates between the two groups cannot be explained by the amount of tumor cells inoculated, because a two-fold difference in inocula could not cause more than a dozen-fold difference in tumor growth. So, how could Wei explain away this? “It seems that Academician Wei can only attribute the difference to the adjuvant which could inhibit the growth of tumor.”[32]

Of course Fang’s attempt was to demonstrate that Wei’s data was completely fabricated. So after cornered Wei into “self-admitting” his adjuvant was the cause of the difference in tumor growth, Fang triumphantly further “proved” Wei’s vaccine’s worthlessness:

“However, what a magical adjuvant it is! It even could inhibit tumor growth by dozens of folds, much more potent than whatever vaccine Academician Wei had developed. Compared with it, the inhibitory effect of Academician Wei’s vaccine is almost negligible. For example, after one week, the adjuvant already shrank the tumor from 450 mm3 (assuming that the relationship between the amount of inoculated cells and tumor volume is linear, then divide the PNAS data by 2) to 50 mm3, and Academician Wei’s vaccine merely further reduced the volume to 20 mm3 (fig. 1), which is really nothing. With such an overwhelming and magical adjuvant in hand, why Academician Wei hasn’t vigorously developed the adjuvant, instead focusing on the insignificant vaccine?”[33]


The figures Fang used to accuse Wei of fabrication

Left: The figure 3 from the PNAS paper[29]. The legend clearly states “Mice were challenged with 1X105 B16G3.26 murine melanoma cells 1 week after the final vaccination.” Fang thought the sentence meant that the tumor volumes were observed 1 week after inoculation. Right: The figure 1 of Wei’s CJO paper. Fang used the data at week 1 (pointed by the red arrow) to compare with PNAS paper’s results.
Fang’s idiotic reasoning: According to the PNAS paper, 1 week after inoculation, the tumor volume in the control mice reached 900 mm3. Since their inoculum was twice as much as Wei’s experiment, Fang divided the 900 mm3 by 2, to get a number comparable with Wei’s results. Since in Wei’s experiment, the tumor volumes one week after inoculation were only about 50 mm3 and 20 mm3 in the control group and vaccine group, respectively, there must be something which shrank the tumor volume in Wei’s experiment from the supposed 450 mm3 to the actual volumes. Since the only difference between the two control groups was adjuvant, then that thing must be adjuvant. Since the adjuvant could shrink tumor from 450 mm3 to 50 mm3, and Wei’s vaccine only shrank tumor from 50 mm3 to 20 mm3, so the adjuvant is much better than Wei’s vaccine.


Obviously someone told Fang that he had misread and misinterpreted the PNAS paper, then Fang modified his webpage and blame the authors of the PNAS paper for bad English which led to his misunderstanding. What a scamp!

The fact is, even if Fang didn’t misread the PNAS paper, his reasoning is still nothing but stupidity and ignorance. First, Fang’s assumption, the relationship between the amount of inoculated cells and tumor volume is linear, was based on his ignorance of “sigmoid growth curve.” Second, Fang obviously didn’t know that B16 cells have different lines, and besides cell numbers, other parameters, such as viability, also influence their growth rate in mice. Third, the age of the mice, the environmental conditions under which the mice grow, and many other factors, all could influence the outcome. Therefore, the incomparability of two independent experimental results is intrinsic, at least quantitatively so. It appears that Fang was totally unaware of this. On the other hand, Fang seemed unaware of the concept of statistical significance, because he really tried to compare the two tumor volumes in Wei’s experiemnt (50 mm3 and 20 mm3). In short, Dr. Lard lacks the very basic academic training!

“Wei’s Adjuvant” incidence not only revealed Fang’s stupidity and ignorance, but also his evilness. Right after having the webpage modified, Fang posted on his forum:

“Very sorry, today’s article contained a mistake. Please read the new version, which is much inferior to the original one. Haha.”[34]

Why would Fang think that an article got worse after a mistake had been removed? The answer is, Fang’s intention was to “demonstrate” that Wei faked his papers, no matter what. So, with that “Wei’s Adjuvant” mistake, his article looked much more powerful than, or superior to, the revised version. That’s why Fang felt sorry for the removal of the mistakes. One of Fang’s followers replied to Fang’s above post:

“It’s unfortunate. I think we should calm down and think it over before launching next attack. However, I am afraid that once we stop, people would say Old Wei has won.”[35]

Fang’s reply:

“He still owes me two rounds, how can you say he has won?”[36]

Another follower’s comment:

“It’s a pity. A fatal disease now becomes just an itching ailment.”[37]

Fang’s reply:

“Haha, letting other people know that his explanations are not as professional as they appeared, that will hurt him enough.”[38]

Yes, winning the battle and hurting the enemies are the only purposes of Fang’s “stand-up for science.”

Fang’s Fight: Round V──Death Code

After 4 rounds of punching in five days, Fang knew he could never win the fight against Academician Wei academically or scientifically, so he swiftly shifted his strategy, trying to destroy Wei politically or personally, just like he has been doing to so many other Chinese scholars. On April 8, 2006, Fang questioned Wei’s “padded CV,” and all he had was an article entitled “Wei Yuquan: Deciphering Cancer’s ‘Death Code,” published on China Scholars Abroad in 2004. The article said that Wei published 42 papers in 5 years while he was studying in Japan, and educated 16 associate professors and Ph.D. students during the period. Of course it was an exaggeration, the question is by whom. Fang was eager to blame Wei for the whole thing, because his logic was this:

“I don’t believe that a person who dares to boast his own overseas resume can conduct his scientific research honestly.”[39]

However, Wei sent a message to Fang the next day:

“Mr. Fang: After reading the report back then, I called and emailed the magazine, requesting the report be retracted. The editors accepted my request. You can verify the fact with the magazine. I dislike this flashy report very much. I ask you delete the article as well. Wei Yuquan”[40]

Of course Fang won’t “verify the fact with the magazine,” and he won’t delete the report, either. Instead, Fang wrote another article on the same day he received Wei’s message. In the article, Fang made a big effort to demonstrate that the magazine was not responsible for any untrue stories, the only person responsible for them was Wei himself, since the report was written by Sichuan University’s propaganda personnel[41]. However, on April 10, 2006, the authors of the report wrote to Fang, detailed the story how they wrote the report without Wei’s help. Fang held the letter for two days before publishing it on the New Threads[42].

Even though the failures came in one after another, Fang’s dirt digging activity carried on. On April 18, Fang wrote and published another article showing the above boasting appeared as early as in 1996[43]. Unfortunately, after April 15, 2006, when Sichuan University cleared Wei’s name, Wei stopped responding to Fang’s attacks completely.

Conclusion

Chinese media started reporting Wei’s incidence from April 12, 2006. The first such report was by The First Weekly. In the article, there is following paragraph:

“Fang said in an interview with reporter, the experimental techniques used in Academician Wei’s papers are commonly used modern biology techniques, ‘in this regard, I am more familiar with, and qualified to make some judgments. I think, there are some flaws and suspicious problems in their experimental design, data processing and experimental results, some are self-contradictory, and some are too perfect, making people suspect the existence of at least the possibility of tampering with the data, and tampering with the data in the scientific community is also considered fraud.’”[44]

This paragraph clearly indicates that except for suspicion, Fang had nothing to prove that Wei had committed fraud. However, in multiple occasions, till today, Fang spoke of Wei as a convicted faker. For example, on April 17, 2006, when commenting on Sichuan University’s statement, Fang wrote:

“After watching his performance in the press conference, I’m 100% sure that he has fabricated.”[45]

On June 29, 2010, Fang wrote:

“Academic fraud experts He Fuchu, Wei Yuquan became vice presidents of the Chinese Medical Association. It seems the association should be called Chinese Pseudo-Medical Association.”[46]

On June 22, 2012, Southern Weekend, “one of the most influential media outlets in China,” published a lengthy report discussing “Fang’s Law” of fighting on the internet. In which, Wei’s case was used as an example[47]. Fang hated the report so much that he wrote two articles to refute it. In one of them, Fang wrote:

“In attempting to discredit me, Southern Weekend even cried foul for some fakers. For example, they tried to demonstrate that the fraud case of Wei Yuquan, vice president of Sichuan University, and CAS academician, was an injustice and wronged, but ignoring the numerous evidences in the ‘For the Record─Sichuan University Wei Yuquan Incidence’ on the New Threads.”[48]

Yes, once you are accused by Fang, you are convicted by him at the same time, even though you answered every question he had. That’s Fang’s Law.


Fang: The most disliked public figure in China
Left: Fang Zhouzi goes to garbage can; Right: More than 80% voters believe Fang is a real imposter.


Notes

[1] Wei, Y. et al. 2000. Immunotherapy of tumors with xenogeneic endothelial cells as a vaccine. Nature Med. 6, 1160–1166.

[2] Si’s original Chinese: “我当时看了他的申请书,觉得有很多东西不可靠。他在申请书后附上了2000年他在《自然•医学》上面发表的那篇文章。粗粗看下来,觉得这篇文章不可信,其中有不少问题。” See: Zhao Yahui, et al. Uncover the heavy fog of “academic crackdown”: Seven questions on the “paper puzzle.” People’s Daily, April 13, 2006. (赵亚辉等:《揭开“学术打假”的重重迷雾:七问“论文迷局”》,2006年4月13日《人民日报》).

[3] Luo Feng , Wei Yuquan, et al. 2001. Anti-tumor immune response against mouse melanoma to xenogeneic vaccination. Chin J Oncol , 23:118-121. (罗锋、魏于全等:《异种黑色素细胞疫苗诱导小鼠恶性黑色素瘤免疫反应》,《中华肿瘤杂志》2001年3月第23卷第2期118-121页).

[4] Wei’s response to Si’s comments were provided by Wei and published on March 29, 2006, on the New Threads (link: [www.xys.org]); the final proof of Si’s comment on Wei’s Nature Medicine paper and Wei’s reply was posted by Si on April 18, 2006 on the New Threads (link: [www.xys.org]); Si’s comment on Wei’s CJO paper has not been made public yet.

[5] Si’s original Chinese: “我迫于形势,向《自然•医学》写了信,只是要求推迟发表。然而,编辑来信说,既然有这么多麻烦,他们就决定不予发表。于是,这一问题就不了了之。” “不久,我接到了魏的电话。魏说他已给《中华肿瘤杂志》的主编打过电话,对方说让我们私了。当时我说,不存在私了的问题,这是学术问题,又不是我们之间的个人问题。我写出自己的疑问,你回答就可以了。” See: See: Zhao Yahui, et al. Uncover the heavy fog of “academic crackdown”: Seven questions on the “paper puzzle.” People’s Daily, April 13, 2006. Note: CJO editor’s decline letter to Wei was made public by Sichuan University on April 15, 2006. See: [www.xys.org].

[6] dajia000’s original Chinese: “事实上,韩苏夏的事例在中国也不是绝无仅有,联想到去年被评为中国科学院院士的魏于全发表在《中华肿瘤学杂志》、《Nature Medicine》的假论文,就可想而知中国学术界是多么腐败!” See: dajia000: Eradicating academic corruption must start from managing the universities strickly. (dajia000:《根除学术腐败 必从严治校》,XYS20040603).

[7] Fang’s original Chinese: “文中提到的四川大学教授魏于全伪造论文在去年评上中国科学院院士一事,将另文揭露。” See: [www.xys.org].

[8] Fang’s original Chinese: “首先需要说明一下,在2004年6月(我前面说是2003年,刚查了来函记录,有误)接到司履生教授的来信之前,我和司教授及魏于全院士都素不相识。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated? XYS20060331. (方舟子:《为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假》,XYS20060331).

[9] Wei’s original Chinese: “司教授多次在西安交大的多种场合包括在课堂上,对我进行人身攻击。” See: Wei Yuquan’s statement on his visiting Professor Si Lusheng and their long-term resentment. XYS20060416. (《魏于全关于拜访司履生教授的情况和长期以来结下的个人恩怨的说明》).

[10] Si’s original Chinese: “做为支持魏于全的用异种疫苗治疗肿瘤理论的代表作有,发表在中华肿瘤杂志上的异种黑色素细胞疫苗诱导小鼠恶性黑色素瘤免疫反应,和发表在nature medicine的immunotherapy of the tumors with xenogeneic endothelial cells as a vaccine。然而,凡是稍稍有一点实验肿瘤学常识的人,只要认真分析一下,就不难看出这些文章是彻头彻尾编造出来的,反科学的谬论。” See: Si Lusheng. An open letter to Chinese Academy of Sciences regarding Wei Yuquan’s fabricated papers. XYS20060326. (司履生:《就魏于全院士发表假论文问题致中国科学院的公开信》,XYS20060326).

[11] Fang’s original Chinese: “司履生教授信中提到的给Nature Medicine的评述我在2003年已收到,后来根据司教授的意见,没有公布。我很高兴司教授现在愿意公布此事。我认为司教授对魏于全院士论文有假的指控是成立的。” See: [www.xys.org].

[12] Wei Yuquan. Replies to Mr. Si’s questions. XYS20060329. (魏于全:《对司先生提问的答复》,XYS20060329).

[13] Link: [blog.sina.com.cn].

[14] Wei Yuquan. A fact sheet about my visit to Mr. Si. XYS20060331. (魏于全:《对拜访司先生的情况说明》,XYS20060331).

[15] Sichuan University. Statement on Wei Yuquan incidence. XYS20060416.(《四川大学新闻发布会通稿:澄清魏于全涉嫌论文造假事件》).

[16] Fang’s original Chinese: “即便我们接受魏院士在信中的解释,该图时间轴的第1天表示的是疫苗治疗后的第1天而不是肿瘤接种后的第1天,那么就有了一个更大的问题。从图的竖轴可知,该图起点的肿瘤体积为0(或接近0,和另一张图‘图1异种疫苗免疫后肿瘤生长曲线’的起点一样),这又与实验方法中说的‘当小鼠皮下扪及肿瘤结节(直径约3mm)时’才开始进行疫苗治疗的说法相矛盾,因为当肿瘤直径约3mm时,按文中的计算公式,肿瘤体积约为50mm^3,其位置可在图中清楚地显示出来(等于该图中约5天时对照组的肿瘤体积),而不会接近0。请问魏院士对此又如何解释?” See: Fang Zhouzi. Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated? XYS20060331. (方舟子:《为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假》,XYS20060331).

[17] Si’s original Chinese: “文中所使用的计算肿瘤体积的公式1x2axb^2是错误的。正确的公式应当是ab^2/2,如此一来,它们所说的500mm3的肿瘤实际上只有125mm^3,即他们的结果比实际结果大了4倍,” See: Si Lusheng. An open letter to Chinese Academy of Sciences regarding Wei Yuquan’s fabricated papers. XYS20060326. (司履生:《就魏于全院士发表假论文问题致中国科学院的公开信》,XYS20060326).

[18] Wei’s original Chinese: “通过这个事件,我建议方先生在处理很专业的问题时,第一,多听听专业内的专家的意见;第二,在没有与当事人核实有关细节之前,不要急于在网上公布“某人论文有假,某某编造了数据”等结论性语言,这样不利于真正的学术探讨和学术打假。” See: weiyuquan. Wei Yuquan’s reply to Fang Zhouzi’s Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated? The forum of the New Threads, March 31, 2006. (《魏于全对方舟子〈为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假〉一文的答复》,新语丝读书论坛2006年3月31日).

[19] Fang’s original Chinese: “这还是在暗示我不够专业。有的人的学术成果一受到质疑,就以‘专业’搪塞,这也是常有的事。不过这一招并不能用于这一事件。魏院士的论文用到了生物化学和分子生物学技术,在这些方面,我还是算得上专业的,在其中某些方面,比如在免疫印迹的制作技术方面,我可能比魏院士还要‘专业’。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Reply to Academician Wei Yuquan’s Reply. XYS20060401. (方舟子:《答魏于全院士的答复》,XYS20060401).

[20] BIGBEN’s original Chinese: “魏院士,请你出示两篇paper (PNAS and Nature Medicine) western blot 的原始图片, 不管是X-光片也好,还是 phosphoimager 图像。 希望你不要说那写原始资料都不存在了或丢失了。” See: [www.xys.org].

[21] Fang’s original Chinese: “X-光片?让他用同位素标记?:-)” See: [www.xys.org].

[22] The English is original. See: [www.xys.org].

[23] Wei Yuquan. Wei Yuquan’s second reply to Mr. Fang. The forum of the New Threads, April 3, 2006. (魏于全:《魏于全再答方舟子先生》,新语丝读书论坛2006年4月3日).

[24] Fang’s original Chinese: “魏院士新寄来的答复要比前面的答复好得多,对我提出的问题基本上都做出了回应。答复的全文附后,先把后面的几条提上来评论一下,再评论关键的一条。最后的这一条我认为这是魏院士答复中的一个重大漏洞,即使是外行也不难看出魏院士难以自圆其说。” See: Fang Zhouzi. The Second Reply to Academician Wei Yuquan’s Reply. XYS20060403. (方舟子:《再答魏于全院士的答复》,XYS20060403).

[25] Original Chinese: “这个数据并未在结论中起作用,可有可无。对于一个对结论不起作用的,又在合理误差范围之内的数据,我看不出还有什么争论的必要,有关此问题的争论可略去.” See: Tianxingjian. Some opinions on Mr. Wei Yuquan’s CJO paper. XYS20060407. (天行健:《关于魏于全先生中华肿瘤一文的看法》,XYS20060407).

[26] Fang’s original Chinese: “此文原题《神奇的肿瘤抑制剂‘魏氏佐剂’》,其中有一部分内容有误。 PNAS论文中的图3未列出肿瘤生长的时间(比较奇怪),所以不能与魏院士的论文做比较。原先提到的1周时间当指肿瘤接种的时间点。论文正文提到时间时未 用介词,又未标出肿瘤生长时间,所以误读。我已将有关段落删除,对此非常抱歉。但是对魏院士错用文献的批评仍然成立。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Second Explanation on Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated. XYS20060404. (方舟子:《再说为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假》,XYS20060404).

[27] Fang’s original Chinese: “在文章中罗列一大堆专业文献,可以显得自己很专业,以吓唬住外行,反正他们是不会去核对这些文献的,即使去查了也看不懂,而内行呢,却未必有时间、有心思去核对。而其实那些吓人的文献可能和要说明的观点没有直接的关系,甚至是相互冲突的。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Second Explanation on Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated. XYS20060404. (方舟子:《再说为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假》,XYS20060404).

[28] Si’s original Chinese: “最不可信的,让人一眼就能看出破绽的是,他们的只用佐剂处理的对照动物在肿瘤接种后30天左右,才生长至500 mm^3,如果按正确的公式计算,他们的肿瘤体积只有125 mm^3,只有绿豆大小,这样大小的肿瘤是绝对不可能引起动物死亡的,那么作者为何不继续观察而要将动物处死呢。根据他们对对照组动物肿瘤生长的描述,可以肯定,他们所使用的小鼠的黑色素瘤细胞株B16,或C57小鼠是绝对不合格的。凡是做过此类动物实验的人都会知道,B16黑色素瘤细胞接种到C57皮下后,20天左右在没有任何干预的情况下,都会长至4000mm^3-6000mm^3以上,并引起小鼠死亡。……根据以上所举的几个问题,我不愿意相信,魏于全院士不懂得进行肿瘤免疫研究的最基本的实验规矩,我只能怀疑,作者是否真正进行过这一组实验,或者说,这是一篇胡乱拼凑的论文.” See: Si Lusheng. An open letter to Chinese Academy of Sciences regarding Wei Yuquan’s fabricated papers. XYS20060326. (司履生:《就魏于全院士发表假论文问题致中国科学院的公开信》,XYS20060326).

[29] Xiang R, et al. 2000. An autologous oral DNA vaccine protects against murine melanoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:5492-7.

[30] Fang’s original Chinese: “但是这张图能够用以支持魏院士的说法吗?不能。魏院士的实验用的是C57野生型小鼠,而PNAS论文这张图的实验材料是免疫缺陷(SCID)的突变小鼠,用外源 CD8+T细胞重建了小鼠的免疫系统。所以实验材料完全不同,根本就不能用来做对比。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Second Explanation on Why Do I Think Academician Wei Yuquan’s Papers Were Fabricated. XYS20060404. (方舟子:《再说为什么我认为魏于全院士的论文有假》,XYS20060404).

[31] Fang’s original Chinese: “所以PNAS这篇论文的数据,不仅不能用以支持魏院士的说法,反而是进一步支持了司教授的说法。” Note: Fang modified the his post later, so the above sentence is no longer available on the New Threads. However, the original post has been preserved in other websites, such as Sichuan University’s BBS. See: The latest response to Wei Yuquan incidence by Fang Zhouzi. (《方舟子关于魏于全事件的最新回应》).

[32] Fang’s original Chinese: “看来,魏院士只能把这个差异归为他使用的佐剂能够抑制肿瘤的生长了。 ” See: The latest response to Wei Yuquan incidence by Fang Zhouzi. (《方舟子关于魏于全事件的最新回应》).

[33] Fang’s original Chinese: “但是这是怎样的一种神奇的佐剂!它竟然能成十倍地抑制肿瘤的生长,比魏院士开发的什么疫苗都强多了,与它相比,魏院士的疫苗的抑制作用几乎是可以忽略不计的。比如,在一周的时候,佐剂已经让肿瘤从450mm^3(假定接种细胞数量与肿瘤大小成线性关系,把PNAS的数据除以2)缩小到了50mm^3,而魏院士的疫苗不过是进一步让肿瘤缩小到20mm^3(图1)而已,后者的抑制效果是可以忽略不计的。有如此喧宾夺主的神奇佐剂,不知魏院士为何没有大力去开发它,却偏要去研究与之相比简直不值一提的什么疫苗?” See: The latest response to Wei Yuquan incidence by Fang Zhouzi. (《方舟子关于魏于全事件的最新回应》).

[34] Fang’s original Chinese: “很抱歉,今天发的文章中有一处错误,大家去看更新的版本,比原先的逊色了不少,呵呵。” See: [www.xys.org].

[35] Follower’s original Chinese: “可惜了。但是我觉得现在得静下心来想想再弄。不过就怕一停,人就说老魏赢了。:-)” See: [www.xys.org].

[36] Fang’s original Chinese: “他还欠着两个回合呢,怎么叫赢了?:-)” See: [www.xys.org].

[37] Follower’s original Chinese: “可惜,本来是一枪毙命,现在是搔恙了” See: [www.xys.org].

[38] Fang’s original Chinese: “呵呵,让大家知道他的辩解其实并不像看上去的那么专业,也够他吃一壶的了” See: [www.xys.org].

[39] Fang’s original Chinese: “一个对自己的海外履历都敢这么放开了胡吹的人,我不相信能踏踏实实地搞科研。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Comment on “Wei Yuquan: Deciphering Cancer’s ‘Death Code.” XYS20060408. (方舟子:《评〈魏于全:破译癌症“死亡密码”〉》,XYS20060408).

[40] Wei’s original Chinese: “方先生:我在当年看道这篇报道时,就已向神州学人杂志的编辑部去电话及email,要撤销这篇报道,编辑部当时已同意我的请求。你可以去确认,我对这篇不实事求是的报道非常反感,请你也删除此文。魏于全” See: Fang Zhouzi. The Second Comment on “Wei Yuquan: Deciphering Cancer’s ‘Death Code.” XYS20060409. (方舟子:《再评〈魏于全:破译癌症“死亡密码”〉》,XYS20060409).

[41] Fang Zhouzi. The Second Comment on “Wei Yuquan: Deciphering Cancer’s ‘Death Code.” XYS20060409. (方舟子:《再评〈魏于全:破译癌症“死亡密码”〉》,XYS20060409).

[42] Cao Shuyu, Yang Shaolin, and Liao Zhilin. About Fang Zhouzi’s two comments on “Wei Yuquan: Deciphering Cancer’s ‘Death Code.” XYS20060412. (曹淑玉、杨绍林、廖志林:《关于方舟子两评〈魏于全:破译癌症“死亡密码”〉的答复》,XYS20060412).

[43] Fang Zhouzi. Genius “China Wei” came out of nowhere. XYS20060418. (方舟子:《天才“中国魏”的横空出世》,XYS20060418).

[44] Original Chinese: “方舟子在接受记者采访时表示,魏于全院士的论文用到的实验技术是现代生物学常用的技术,‘在这方面我比较熟悉,可以做出一些判断。我认为,在其论文的实验设计、数据处理和实验结果等方面,都存在一些漏洞和可疑之处,有的前后自相矛盾,有的过于完美,让人怀疑至少存在篡改数据的可能,而篡改数据在科学界也被认为是造假。’” See: Shi Jiansong. Academician Wei Yuquan’s papers called into question. The First Weekly, April 12, 2006. ( 施剑松:《中科院院士魏于全学术论文遭造假质疑》,2006年4月12日《竞报》). 

[45] Fang’s original Chinese: “在看了他在新闻发布会上的表演后我百分之百地相信有假”。See: [www.xys.org].

[46] Fang’s original Chinese: “学术造假高手贺福初、魏于全还成了中华医学会副会长,看来该改叫中华伪医学会了。” See: [weibo.com].

[47] Chen Ming, et al. Fang’s Law: Fang Zhouzi and his influence on the rules of debate. Southern Weekend, June 22, 2012. (陈鸣等:《方法:方舟子与他所影响的论战法则》,2012年6月22日《南方周末》).

[48] Fang’s original Chinese: “《南方周末》为了抹黑我,不惜为一些造假者鸣冤叫屈。比如,他们力证四川大学副校长、中国科学院院士魏于全造假事件是一个冤案,而无视新语丝‘立此存照•四川大学魏于全事件‘专辑中列举的众多证据。” See: Fang Zhouzi. How did Southern Weekend frame me. XYS20120623.(方舟子:《〈南方周末〉是如何构陷我的》,XYS20120623).



被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:15AM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XI.pdf (754.4 KB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (6552 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3951 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (4369 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3517 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (5094 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (4174 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (4002 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3485 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3466 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4824 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4700 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4558 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4544 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (4623 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2717 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (3195 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (3194 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4344 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (6933 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (10792 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

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

This forum powered by Phorum.