欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XX: The Longevity Case (6933 查看)

March 31, 2013 03:55PM
【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 XX)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

【Summary】On Sept 14, 2012, Fang published an article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph about caloric restriction and longevity. While introducing Clive McCay’s classic study in the first paragraph, Fang made 10 low level mistakes, suggesting he didn’t read the original paper. When facing a plagiarism allegation that he plagiarized a professor of Peking University, Fang issued a statement saying instead he plagiarized the professor, the professor plagiarized him, because his article was a newer version of an old one which was published ten years earlier. The fact is, both the old and new articles are plagiarism, and the victims including at least three American professors and a registered nurse. Fang’s accusation against the professor could not be substantiated.


Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Longevity Case

The Story
1. A Scifool Article
2. A Self-incrimination Statement
3. A Mammoth Thief

The Evidence of Plagiarism
1. A Revealing Table
2. Mistakes from Misreading
3. Mistakes from Believing
4. East Lancing Ph. D. Plagiarizing North Carolina Master

Concluding Remarks
A Complete Comparison

Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Longevity Case

The major players
From left: Dr. Robert Arking and Prof. Tian Qinglai, the victims; Fang, the thief and accuser.

The Story

1. A Scifool Article

Since 2007, Fang has been known in China as a “scifool writer,” a writer who fools his readers in the name of science[1]. So far, Fang has published hundreds of scifool articles, and many of them have been analyzed and documented[2].

On Sept. 14, 2012, Fang, pretending as a nutritionist, published Can You live Longer by Eating Less? in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, a newspaper affiliated with Xinhua News Agency where Fang’s wife Liu Juhua works as a chief reporter. The article is about the caloric restriction research, and its first paragraph, which contains only 6 sentence, introduces the classic experiment conducted by Clive Maine McCay and his colleagues in 1935[3]. According to my analysis, Fang made at least 10 low level mistakes in this paragraph[4]. For example, Fang claimed that the object of McCay’s experiment was to demonstrate that longevity is inversely proportional to developmental rate. The fact is, the authors stated explicitly that “[t]he object of this study was to determine the effect of retarding growth upon the total length of life and to measure the effects of retarded growth upon the ultimate size of the animal's body.” They didn’t measure any developmental parameters. Another example of Fang’s mistakes is that Fang said by caloric restriction, McCay et al. extended the average lifespan of the male rats by about 50%. The fact is, according to the paper, the average lifespan of the male rats in the two restricted groups were 820 and 894 days, respectively, and that of the control group was 483 days, so the average extensions were 70% and 85%, respectively[3].

The most outrageous mistakes made by Fang were in the last sentence of the paragraph: “Among the normally fed rats, the longest lifespan was 965 days, and among the calorically restricted rats, some lived for more than 1,800 days, equivalent of about 200 years in humans.” Anyone who has read McCay’s paper could tell that the longest lifespans of the control rat and calorically restricted rat were 1,189 days and 1,421 days, respectively. There was not a single rat among the 104 rats used in the experiment lived for 965 days. And during McCay’s lifespan, he had never raised a rat that lived for 1,800 days, to my knowledge. Furthermore, according to Henry H. Donaldson, the very person who established albino rat as a model organism, “a rat three years old ……may be regarded as corresponding to a man ninety years old.”[5] Therefore, Fang’s equivalency is not right either.

Obviously, Fang didn’t read McCay’s paper when he was introducing McCay’s experiment. The question is: How did he achieve that?

On Sept. 21, 2012, I wrote an open letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, the editor-in-chief of the Xinhua Daily Telegraph, in which I analyzed Fang’s scifool article, exposed Fang’s ignorance, accused him of deceiving his readers with false information, and suggested that his mistakes were made by plagiarizing other, yet to be identified sources[4]. Based upon my experience, I expected no-response from Fang, since no-response had been Fang’s response to most of my allegations and accusations in the past five years. However, something strange happened.

2. A Self-incrimination Statement

Based on my suggestion in the open letter, an internet user found two pieces of evidence showing that Fang might have committed plagiarism indeed[6]: in an article published in 2009 and authored by Professor Tian Qinglai of Peking University, there were above-mentioned mistakes of 965 days/1800 days/200 years; also, both Fang and Prof. Tian wrote the following passage:

“The diet of the residents of Ryukyu Islands contains adequate nutrition, but the calorie is much lower than the norm in Japan. Their lifespan is also longer than the norm in Japan, the incidence of centenarians is 2-40 times as many as the number on other Japanese islands.”[7]

The only difference between Fang and Tian was that the latter said the incidence of centenarians in Ryukyu was 2-4 times, instead of 2-40 times as Fang said, as many as the rest part of Japan.

On Sept. 25, Fang issued a statement, entitled A Statement Regarding the Plagiarism Committed by Professor Tian Qinglai of the Life Science School at Peking University, which reads as follows:

“The article entitled The Gate to Longevity - Restricting Calories and Enhancing Nutrition by Tian Qinglai, a professor in the School of Life Sciences of Peking University, and the research director of Aging Research Center at Peking University, published in Health Guide (October, 2009, [www.vloho.com]), was mainly based on my article written in 2002, Eat Less, Live Longer, published in the 21st issue of Globe semimonthly, in 2002. The article was later published in Disillusionment of Longevity and Science Makes You Healthy (http://tech.sina.com.cn/oi/2003-07-24/1407213150.shtml). The forth part of Tian’s article, Examples of Longevity and Anti-aging, is complete plagiarism; the only difference is that he foolishly changed my ‘2-40 times’ to his ‘2-4 times.’

“Recently, there has been new progress in the research on the relationship between caloric restriction and aging, [the results] challenging the traditional opinions, therefore I wrote Can You Live Longer by Eating Less?, and published in Xinhua Daily Telegraph. Some paragraphs, including the one plagiarized by Tian Qinglai, were rewritten from the old article. Based on that fact, a Fang-hater accused me of plagiarizing Tian Qinglai, and the senior Fang-haters, such as Yi Ming, Han Han’s father Han Renjun, Sun Haifeng, Without V (Muzi Mei), and Yi Tian, outcried even louder. My popular science articles have been plagiarized many times, and I didn’t want to make a fuss over such plagiarism involving only one or two paragraphs. However, since Fang-haters want to use this case to level an allegation against me, I’d better make a statement.”[8]

Fang must have thought that he hit the jackpot in this case, because he posted the statement everywhere: twice on his New Threads, twice on his microblogs, and four times on his blogs[9]. Fang’s statement also made his followers festively joyous, one of them, hqabc_, many people believe it's the account controlled by Fang’s wife Liu Juhua, even demanded an apology from me[10].

Why this statement was so important to Fang and his followers? Because it was the first one since August, 2011, when Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein of Michigan State University made a public plagiarism allegation against Fang in his An Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang, and Fang swore repeatedly that he would not respond to any questions regarding to the charge, and anyone who continued commenting the incident on his microblog would by blocked[11]. To most Chinese people, including Fang’s followers, Fang’s behavior was equivalent to admitting wrong doing. Therefore, Fang and his followers hoped that the statement against Prof. Tian could serve as a pivotal turning point: instead of a plagiarizer, Fang had been a victim of double crimes: he was first plagiarized by Professor Tian, then he was falsely accused of plagiarism by Fang-haters. How innocent and pitiful the Great Leader Fang is, and how hateful and evil these Fang-haters are!

However, to veteran “Fang experts,” Fang’s performance revealed more than what he intended. The fact is, Fang has repeatedly claimed that the standard of plagiarism for popular science articles is different from that for academic papers, and in the former, there is no need to give citations or attributions[12]. So Fang’s accusation against Professor Tian actually put himself in an extremely awkward situation: if his accusation was valid, then the 92 plagiarism cases documented before that time against him must also be valid; if his accusation was false, then his so called “fraud busting” must be fraudulent, at least partially so, and his claim that he’s fraud busting had been flawless was falsified. Also, Fang’s accusation against Prof. Tian clearly indicates that Fang does know that there is no different standard of plagiarism for popular science writings, since Tian’s article was just one of such. It also shows that Fang has been intentionally using double standards to defend himself and to attack other people. Furthermore, Fang’s allegation against Tian showed clearly how imprudent, reckless, irresponsible, and evil his “fraud busting” is: except for similarities, Fang had no other evidence - he even dared not to give a comparison.

The fact is, Professor Tian studied the effect of caloric restriction on aging as early as in 1986, and he has published numerous related books[13]. On the other hand, Fang has no training, no background, and no basic knowledge in these areas. So, why would an expert plagiarize a few sentences from a layman? On the other hand, there had been several articles before Tian’s talking about the centenarian incidence in Okinawa[14]. So, even if Professor Tian did commit plagiarism, why he had to plagiarize Fang?

Professor Tian Qinglai’s gerontological books

3. A Mammoth Thief

Fang’s another miscalculation by issuing the statement was that he revealed the information of his original article. Based on this information, I cracked Fang’s another plagiarism case, the 93rd case identified by then.

According to Fang, his Eat Less, Live Longer was originally published in Globe magazine, and in two books. The fact is, according to the link he provided, the article was also published in Southern Weekend in 2003, and, I found out, was present in the book Are You Eating Supplements or Poisons?, published in 2008 in Taiwan. In other words, Fang published the article five times in less than 6 years, and Can You live Longer by Eating Less? is its 6th appearance in print media.

Between 2002 and 2008, Fang’s Eat Less, Live Longer appeared 5 times in China’s print media
From left: Globe magazine (2002); Disillusionment of Longevity (2002); Southern Weekend (2003); Science Makes You Healthy (2007); Are You Eating Supplements or Poisons? (2008).

The publishers of Fang’s fraudulent article and books
From left: Mr. Ji Bin (姬斌), the editor-in-chief of Globe magazine, a subsidiary magazine of Xinhua News Agency, published Fang’s Eat Less, Live Longer in 2002; Mr. Mao Wentao (毛文涛), the president of Shanghai Science and Technology Press, published Fang’s Disillusionment of Longevity in 2002; Mr. Zhang Baixin (张百新), the president of Xinhua Publishing House, a subsidiary company of Xinhua News Agency, published Fang’s Science Makes You Healthy in 2007; and Mr. Xie Guoji (解国记), the editor-in-chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph, a subsidiary newspaper of Xinhua News Agency, published at least 9 articles plagiarized by Fang in 2012, including Can You live Longer by Eating Less?.

According to Fang, only “some paragraphs…were rewritten from the old article” in Can You live Longer by Eating Less?. However, a careful examination reveals that among the 12 paragraphs, 1,866 characters, in the article, 8.5 paragraphs, 1,350 characters are the same as the old version, Eat Less, Live Longer (see figure below).

If this is not self-plagiarism, then what is self-plagiarism?

Garbage Recycling
On Sept. 14, 2012, Xinhua Daily Telegraph published Fang’s Can You Live Longer by Eating Less?, which has nearly three quarters of the same content (highlighted in yellow) as his original article published in 2002, Eat Less, Live Longer, which was published 5 times between 2002 and 2008.

An astonishing finding was that, when the article appeared in Disillusionment of Longevity in 2002, it was accompanied by 13 images, none of them with a source acknowledgement, therefore they must have been pirated by Fang from the internet. Yes, from ancient Greek Aristotle to a present day African hungry boy to American scientists Stephen Spindler and Roy Walford; from fat cells to a fat mouse to a Barbary ape; from a humorous poster to a menu picture to a gene chip photo; from the pyramid of food to the pyramid of Biosphere 2: anyone, anything, could be stolen by Fang, and sold by him over and over, whether they are protected by the copyright law or not.

If this is not stealing, then what is stealing?

Q: How does a thief write books? A: By stealing.
Fang stole 1 table and 13 images in the chapter of Eat Less, Live Longer in his Disillusionment of Longevity, none of them was attributed. The images alone occupied more than a half of the space in the chapter. (The entire book contains 134 pages, 145 images.)

The Evidence of Plagiarism

1. A Revealing Table

The above finding was astonishing indeed, but the most valuable finding in the book was a table, “The effect of calorie-restricted diet on the longevity of field mice.” The numbers in the “lifespan” columns were from McCay’s papers on white rats[15], but the numbers in the “percent change in median lifespan” columns didn’t appear in these papers.

A mysterious table
A table appeared in Fang’s Disillusionment of Longevity (p. 96) (above) and Science Makes You Healthy (p. 38) (not shown). The two tables are exactly the same, except that the first one indicated the animals used were field mice (田鼠) and the other were rats (大鼠). The English translations in the above table are mine, and due to space limitation, some Chinese characters were covered by their English translations.

I searched the internet, and found out that Fang’s table was stolen from the Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles by Dr. Robert Arking, a biology professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, about 90 minutes away from Michigan State University, Fang’s alma mater.

Table 7.1 of Robert Arking’s Biology of Aging (1998 edition, p.314)
The table is a composite from two of McCay’s papers, but the data in the column of “percent change in median life span” (red-boxed) were not present in either of them, so the values in the column must be calculated by Dr. Robert Arking himself. Fang’s table contains exactly the same content as that of Dr. Arking’s, but he has never acknowledged the fact.

Dr. Arking’s book has three editions: 1991, 1998, and 2006, and more than one half of Fang’s Eat less, Live Longer was directly translated from the 2nd edition of Biology of aging, including its table 7.1.

2. Mistakes from Misreading

As mentioned above, the case was initiated from the finding of many stupid mistakes in the first paragraph of Fang’s Can You live Longer by Eating Less, and these mistakes were the duplication of his 2002 article, Eat Less, Live Longer. Then, how did Fang make these mistakes? The answer is, mostly by misreading Dr. Arking, a few by copying Dr. Arking and other people. Let’s examine the misreadings first.

According to Fang, the average lifespan of underfed male rats in McCay’s experiment was extended by about 50% (See sentence II-5 in the table below). Obviously, Fang didn’t know the difference between mean and median, so he interpreted Dr. Arking’s Table 7.1 in a wrong way.

Another example of Fang’s misreading includes his following statement:

“In 1917, three American biologists, T. B. Osborne et al., conducted a nutrition experiment with rats, and they found that those underfed grew retarded, and seemed lived longer.” (Sentence II-1)

The fact is, the paper by Osborne et al. was published in March 1917 in Science, and their experiment lasted about 3 three years[16]. Therefore, neither the experiment was conducted, nor the finding was made, in 1917. And the only reason Fang said so was because in Dr. Arking’s book, there is the following sentence:

“This idea was derived partly from the works of philosophers such as Aristotle and partly from the experimental work of Osborne, Mendel, and Ferry (1917), whose data suggested, but did not prove, that underfed rats live longer.” (p.313)

The fact is, even the sentences which Fang used to accuse Professor Tian of plagiarism were originally plagiarized by Fang from Dr. Arking, and the only difference was that Fang translated Okinawa, an island of Ryukyu Islands, into Ryukyu Islands:

Fang: “The diet of the residents of Ryukyu Islands contains adequate nutrition, but the calorie is much lower than the norm in Japan. Their life span is also longer than the norm in Japan, the incidence of centenarians is 2-40 times as many as the number on other Japanese islands. Centenarians around the world have rarely been obese.” (Sentences X-4 and X-5)

Dr. Arking: “In the past, the caloric intake of much of the population of Okinawa was much lower than the norm in Japan, but the nutrition of the Okinawans was otherwise adequate. Okinawa has a high incidence of centenarians: 2 to 40 times as many as may be found on any other Japanese island. …Other anecdotal evidence suggests that very few, if any, centenarians or other long-lived people have been obese.” (p.324).

3. Mistakes from Believing

So, why did Fang say McCay’s experiment was to test whether animal’s lifespan was really inversely proportional to the developmental rate, while the title of McCay’s paper was The effect of retarded growth upon the length of life span and upon the ultimate body size? Because Dr. Arking wrote:

“The experiments of McCay and his colleagues, which we will discuss shortly, grew out of the idea that longevity is inversely proportional to developmental rate. This idea was derived partly from the works of philosophers such as Aristotle….” (p.313)

The fact is, what Aristotle said was, it is a general rule that the larger animals live longer than the smaller ones[17], so his idea was more like “longevity is inversely proportional to growth rate” rather than “to developmental rate.”[18] (“Aristotle” was deleted in the 3rd edition of Biology of Aging.)

In fact, Dr. Arking only implied what Aristotle thought, but Fang developed that implication into an explicit statement, saying Aristotle thought that animal’s longevity was related to their developmental duration, the slower the development rate, the longer the lifespan. (Sentence I-4).

Fang’s over extrapolation was not limited to Aristotle. In his book, Dr. Arking mentioned many times the negative effect of protein glycation or glycosylation on aging, such as “advanced glycosylation end products.” Obviously based on the information, Fang wrote:

“Protein glycosylation is probably the most common chemical reaction during the aging process.” (Sentence VII-3)

It is very clear that this famous “biochemist,” trained by Michigan State University, praised by his advisor[19], and “certified” by Science magazine[20], didn’t know the difference between the non-enzymatic glycation and enzymatic glycosylation, the latter is essential for the functions of many bio-molecules, mainly proteins[21].

So, where did Fang’s mistakes of 965/1800/200 come from? Some people suggested that Fang might have plagiarized the articles in Life Extension Magazine. In two articles published in the magazine in 1995 and 2001, respectively, there are following sentences:

“The longest lived calorie restricted rat survived for more than 1,800 days (the equivalent of about 200 years in humans) in the laboratory of Morris H. Ross at the Institute For Cancer Research in Philadelphia.”

“McCay’s oldest control rat died at 965 days, whereas his oldest CR rat lived 1,456 days (150 years in human terms).”[22]

One might doubt that an American Ph. D. could make a statement like Fang’s (“Among the normally fed rats [by McCay et al.], the longest lifespan was 965 days, and among the calorically restricted rats, some lived for more than 1,800 days, equivalent of about 200 years in humans”) based upon the above two sentences, because they actually conflict with what Fang wrote. However, it seems impossible to underestimate Fang’s intelligence and knowledge. In the 12th paragraph of Eat Less, Live Longer, Fang introduced a PNAS paper by Dr. Stephen Spindler of UC Riverside. Apparently unable to understand the original paper, Fang based his introduction on an interview of Dr. Stephen Spindler by Life Extension Magazine. In the interview, Dr. Spindler said:

“We took a group of animals that had been allowed to eat almost all they wanted their whole life and we intervened when they were quite old-34 months of age. These mice would be the equivalent of people who are probably 80 years old or older - I'm just guessing at the human equivalent age.”[23]

And Fang wrote:

“They then underfed a group of 34 months old mice (equivalent of people who are about 80 years old)…” (Sentence XII-6)

It is common knowledge that rats have longer lifespan than mice, so how come 34 months old mice are equivalent to 80 years old people, while 60 months old rats are equivalent to 200 years old people? Even if the rodents have the same lifespan, the numbers still do not add up, unless Fang had a queer formula.

4. East Lancing Ph. D. Plagiarizing North Carolina Master

As I mentioned before, Fang values his Ph. D. credential dearly, and if anyone without a doctoral degree wants to argue with him, Fang would for sure laugh at his overreaching. For example, in 1999, Fang told one of his opponents:

“In the biology domain, anyone without a doctorate is not qualified to conduct research; those with a Master’s degree can only provide technical labor, let alone other people.”[24]

And in 2011, because of his wife's plagiarism case, Fang declared, in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, that a Master degree graduate student has no need to write a degree thesis, obviously implying that plagiarism in a Master’s degree thesis is not a big deal due to its non-necessity[25]. However, in Eat Less, Live Longer, Fang plagiarized an article written by a Master from North Carolina. In the article, Fang wrote:

“Many results showed that if rodents were on a diet with complete nutrients, but with 25-60% calorie reduction, their risks of chronic diseases after middle age would be reduced; and their lifespan extended by about 30%. For example, one experiment conducted in 1986 with mice and rats showed that the calorie restricted mice lived 47 months on average, and the control group lived 28 months; the calorie restricted rats lived 1300 days on average, and the control group lived 720 days.” (Sentences III-2 and III-3)

On the internet, there is an article written by Jean E. Pierog (R.N., M.S., NC), in which it says:

“One such study with mice and rats by Weindruch (1986) showed that fully fed mice lived on the average 28 months versus the calorie restricted group who lived 47 months. Rat survivals were shown to be approximately 720 days old for those eating ad lib and 1300 days of life if calories were restricted. In these and other studies, calorie restriction is defined as a reduction in calories of 25-60% from ad lib feeding levels while providing an adequate intake of essential vitamins and nutrients.”[26]

Just by looking at the Arabic numbers in the two passages, you should be able to tell their relationship. Doctor Fang must have been extremely loyal to Master Pierog when he was plagiarizing the article. Unfortunately, the passage he stole contains a crucial mistake: in 1986, Dr. Richard Weindruch only published one paper as the first author, and not only that paper did not contain any of these numbers, it also did not deal with rats[27].

Concluding Remarks

In summary, Fang’s Eat Less, Live Longer contains 3,902 Chinese characters, among them, 2078 (53%) were translated from Dr. Arking’s Biology of Aging, 400 (10%) from articles published in Life Extension Magazine, 170 (4.4%) from Master Pierog’s internet article, and 140 (3.6%) from one of Dr. Walford’s papers. The total proportion of plagiarism is 71%. Considering the space occupied by the stolen images in his books, Fang’s own contribution to “his article” is merely about 10%, assuming those sentences without identified sources were indeed written by himself.

Multiple plagiarisms
The text of Fang’s Eat Less, Live Longer contains 3,902 Chinese characters, among them, 53% (highlighted in yellow) were translated from Dr. Robert Arking’s book, Biology of Aging. Besides Dr. Arking, Fang also plagiarized Ms. Jean E. Pierog (dark blue), Dr. Walford, et al. (light blue), and articles in Life Extension Magazine (green). The total percentage of plagiarism is more than 70%.

On Oct. 17, 2012, three weeks after Fang’s self-incriminating statement, I published another open letter, reporting the above findings[28]. The open letter was sent via email to Mr. Xie Guoji and Fang, the editor-in-chief and the columnist of Xinhua Daily Telegraph, respectively, on the same day of its publication. However, neither chief editor Xie nor columnist Fang has responded to the letter yet. Fang’s non-responsiveness is understandable and expected, because that’s the last strategy available to him whenever his fraud is exposed. In other words, by not responding to an allegation without any excuses (such as having no time, unnecessary, etc.), Fang admitted his plagiarism, as well as his false accusation against Prof. Tian.

The non-responsiveness from the newspaper is also understandable and expected, for the reasons I will reveal sometime later.

The thing I don’t understand and didn’t expect is the non-responsiveness from Nature. Of course you have your own, probably unspeakable, reasons. However, no matter how secretive they are, they will be known to the world eventually. It is amusing that a prestigious science journal in the Western world behaves just like a communist newspaper in China on the matter involving Fang. Maybe he does have some demonical power of transformation!

On the other hand, if a demon can be praised, prized, and promoted just because he is wearing a “fraud fighter” uniform, holding a “stand-up for science” banner, yelling the “root out the fakers” slogan, then does it make pseudoscience, antiscience, frauds, and fakers look so innocent and benign, make science look so evil and malicious?

A Complete Comparison between Fang’s Eat Less, Live Longer with Its Sources 【Please read the PDF file


[1] I first termed Fang’s so called science popularization “scifool” (科唬) on November 11, 2007. (See:《方舟子论转基因:伪“科普”,真“科唬”》). The term has been well accepted by Chinese people: on March 31, 2013, google the term generates 21,000 results; baidu the term generates 47,300 results.

[2] See “Special Collection of Fang Zhouzi’s Fake Science Popularization” on AIR-China. (《方舟子伪科普专辑》).

[3] McCay CM, Crowell MF, Maynard LA. 1935. The effect of retarded growth upon the length of life span and upon the ultimate body size. J Nutr.10:63–79.

[4] Fang’s mistakes: 1. Translating McCay to “麦克凯” (mài kè kǎi), indicating he didn’t know the basic English pronunciation rules; 2. Claiming Osborne et al. made their discovery in 1917; 3. Claiming McCay was testing the hypothesis that that longevity is inversely proportional to developmental rate; 4. Claiming McCay divided the rats into two groups; 5. Claiming McCay’s underfed rats were calorically restricted all along; 6. Claiming McCay’s underfed rats stopped growing; 7. Claiming the average lifespan of the underfed male rats was extended by 50%; 8. Claiming the longest lifespan of McCay’s normal rats was 965 days; 9. Claiming McCay raised a rat that lived for more than 1,800 days; 10. Claiming a 1,800 days old rat is equivalent to a 200 years old man. (See: Yi Ming. The Gigantic Cheater Fang Is Still Cheating: The Second Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph. Sept. 21, 2012. 亦明:《方巨骗,还在骗──给《新华每日电讯》总编辑的第二封公开信》).

[5] Donaldson, H. H. The rat: reference tables and data. Memoirs of the Wistar Institute, No. 6. Philadephia, 1915. p. 20.

[6] Six-fingered: Little Fang is now increasingly good for nothing. Sept. 22, 2012. (六指:《小方现在越来越没出息了》).

[7] The webpage of Prof. Tian’s article, The Gate to Longevity (《长寿之门》) has been deleted. The related Chinese text is preserved in reference [6] and recorded here:

Tian: 1935年美国康奈尔大学的麦卡教授进行的小鼠实验发现,自由饮食的大鼠其骨架在175天后就停止了生长,在两年内大部分死去,个别的大鼠活了965天;而限制饮食热量的小鼠在1000天内骨架还在缓慢地生长,全部活到4岁半以上,寿命平均延长了约50%,有的活到了1800多天(相当于人活到200岁)。

Fang: 1935年,美国康奈尔大学的麦克凯等人直接验证是否动物寿命真的与发育速度成反比。在大鼠断奶后,他们给其中的一组提供完备的营养物质,但是严格限制其饮食,让它们一直处于饥饿中,而另一组老鼠则任其吃饱。饮食受限制的老鼠发育几乎停止,身体也不再长大,一些老鼠夭折了,但是存活下来的老鼠中,寿命明显增长了。雄鼠所受的影响更显著,寿命平均延长了约50%。喂食正常的老鼠中,寿命最长的为965天,而限制喂食的老鼠,有的活到了1800多天(相当于人活到200岁)。

Tian: 人类很难做限食实验,只能靠间接证据表明限制热量可能对人体有积极作用。研究发现,琉球群岛的居民饮食富有营养,但热量低于普通日本人,他们的寿命长于普通日本人,其百岁寿星的数目是日本其他地区的2~4倍。又如在1991~1993年间,科学家让四男四女在一个与外界隔绝的生态系统“生物圈2”住了两年。在此期间,他们的饮食营养齐备,但热量大约为一般饮食的90%。结果他们的体重都明显地降低了(男的降低18%,女的降低10%),并出现了与卡路里受限制的小鼠类似的生理变化。

Fang: 不过,有一些间接证据表明限制饮食热量可能对人体也有积极作用。琉球群岛的居民的饮食有充足的营养,但热量低于普通日本人,他们的寿命也长于普通日本人,其百岁寿命的数目是日本其他地区的2~40倍。世界各地的百岁寿星也极少有肥胖的。在1991~1993年间,四男四女在一个与外界隔绝的生态系统“生物圈2”住了两年。在此期间,他们的饮食营养齐备,但热量大约为一般饮食的90%。他们的体重明显降低了(男的降低18%,女的降低10%),并出现了与卡路里受限制的老鼠类似的生理变化。

[8] Fang’s original Chinese: “北京大学生命科学学院教授、北京大学老龄问题研究中心科研部主任田清涞《长寿之门——需限制热量,增强营养》一文(登于《健康指南》2009年10月,)主要参考我写于2002年的《吃得少活得老》(登于《环球》半月刊2002年第21期,后收入《长生的幻灭》《科学成就健康》),其中“四、长寿与抗衰老事例”一段全文照抄,只是自作聪明地把“2~40倍”错误地改成“2~4倍”。最近关于限制热量与衰 老的关系的研究有新进展,对传统的观点提出了挑战,我因此又写了一篇《吃得少活得老?》登在《新华每日电讯》上,其中部分段落改自旧文,包括被田清涞抄袭的那段。有方黑据此反过来指责我抄袭田清涞,亦明、韩寒之父韩仁均、孙海峰、不加V(木子美)、易天等资深方黑更是跳得厉害。我的科普文章多次被人抄袭, 像这样只是抄袭一两段的,我本懒得计较,但方黑们既然借此大做文章倒打一耙,我还是说明一下。”

[9] See: [www.xys.org]; [www.xys.org]; [xysblogs.org]; [blog.sina.com.cn]; [fangzhouzi.blog.hexun.com]; [t.hexun.com]; [blog.caijing.com.cn]; [t.sohu.com].

[10] hqabc_’s original Chinese: “@亦明2010 这次是当君子道歉呢,还是当睁眼瞎,继续骗弱智?” (See: 2012-9-25 05:22).

[11] Fang’s original Chinese: “Root-Bernstein博士污蔑我从新语丝拿工资发博文、我的文章90%是其论文内容、我逐字照抄其文字和例子(其实我已做恰当的改写并举自己的例子)、我剽窃其论文和侵犯其版权,全是谣言,他授权“方学家”诋毁我,我不起诉他已算客气,他还敢扬言告我?这是我对该事件最后表态,以后有人再问一概拉黑。” (See: 2011-8-22 10:42). “关于‘方舟子剽窃美国教授’一事自去年10月份以来我已在微博和博客上澄清过很多次,最近的一次见:[t.cn] 还有其他几篇,有疑问的自己去看。我不再回答这个问题,再问就拉黑。” (See: 2011-8-22 11:12).

[12] For example, Fang wrote on Mar. 25, 2006: “So, Wu Guosheng’s accusation against me of stealing coyotejoy’s article is totally infamatory. ……He obviously doesn’t know anything about the difference between science popularization articles and academic research papers, and he applied the standards for the latter to the former. Academic research papers are required to give citations for every sentence, and required to give a detailed reference sources, but there is no such a requirement for science popularization articles or essays. This is true not only in China, but also all over the world.” (Original words: “可见吴国盛指控我抄袭coyotejoy文章,完全是侮蔑。……他显然完全不懂科普文章与学术论文的区别,以学术论文的标准来衡量科普文章。学术论文要 求句句有出处,必须详细列出文献来源,但是科普文章、随笔却没有这样的要求。不仅是中国的科普文章、随笔如此,全世界的科普文章、随笔也都如此。” Fang Zhouzi. A Reply to American Wu Guosheng. XYS20060325. 方舟子:《答美国的“吴国盛”》, XYS20060325). For more examples, See: Xin Ge: A few comments on Dr. Zachary Burton’s “Support for Dr. Shi-min Fang”, Part IV.

[13] Wang Houde, Wang Wenlu, Bai Jiaxiang, and Tian Qinglai. 1986. The Effect of Food Intake on Mice’s Lifespan. Chinese Journal of Gerontology 1986 (4):48-50. (王厚德、王文录、白家祥、田清涞:《食量对小鼠寿命试验的干扰》,《老年学杂志》1986年4期48-50页.) Tian Qinglai and Tian Feng. Aging and anti-aging science. China Social Press, 2009. (田清涞、田枫:《衰老与抗衰老学》,中国社会出版社2009年版.) Tian Qinglai and Tian Feng. Nutrition for the elderly. China Social Press, 2009. (田清涞、田枫:《老年营养学》,中国社会出版社2009年版.) Tian Qinglai and Tian Feng. Traditional and modern science of health preserving. China Social Press, 2009. (田清涞、田枫:《传统与现代养生学》,中国社会出版社2009年版.)

[14] For example, an article published on Dec. 2, 2005 says: “In the Okinawa Island, the incidence of centenarians is several times as many as the number on other Japanese islands.” (Original Chinese: “日本冲绳岛的百岁老人数比其他地区高好几倍”. See: Zhang Jiaqing. Eat Less, Live Longer. Xinmin Evening News Dec. 2, 2005. 张家庆:《吃得少活得长》, 2005年12月2日《新民晚报》.) Also, in A Mystery of Life & Death: Secrets of How to Live 120 Years (Zhaohua Press, 2007, pp.136-138), there is similar content.

[15] See: Table 1 in McCay, C. M. and M. F. Crowell. 1934. Prolonging the life span. Sci. Monthly 39: 405–414, and Table 2 in McCay, C., M. Crowell and L. Maynard. 1935. The effect of retarded growth upon the length of life and upon ultimate size. J. Nutr. 10: 63–79.

[16] Osborne TB, Mendel CB, Ferry ER. 1917. The effect of retardation of growth upon the breeding period and duration of life in rats. Science 45:294–295.

[17] Aristotle: “Speaking generally, the longest-lived things occur among the plants, e.g. the date-palm. Next in order we find them among the sanguineous animals rather than among the bloodless, and among those with feet rather than among the denizens of the water. Hence, taking these two characters together, the longest-lived animals fall among sanguineous animals which have feet, e.g. man and elephant. As a matter of fact also it is a general rule that the larger live longer than the smaller, for the other long-lived animals too happen to be of a large size, as are also those I have mentioned.” (See: Aristotle. On Longevity and Shortness of Life. Translated by G. R. T. Ross.)

[18] Ukrainian physiologist and gerontologist Vladimir V. Frolkis wrote: “Since Aristotle and later Buffon, Shmalgauzen, and Bidder, an important role in species-specific life span determination has been attributed to growth rate.” (Vladimir V. Frolkis, Khachik K. Muradian. Experimental Life Prolongation. CRC Press, Oct 24, 1991. p.170.)

[19] Zachary Burton. Support for Dr. Shi-min Fang.

[20] Xiong Lei. 2001. Biochemist Wages Online War Against Ethical Lapses. Science 293:1039.

[21] See, for example, Reuter, G. & Gabius, HJ. 1999. Eukaryotic glycosylation: whim of nature or multipurpose tool? Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55:368–422; Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, et al., editors. Essentials of Glycobiology. 2nd edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2009.

[22] Anonymous. 1995. Dietary Manipulation Of Aging. Life Extension Magazine, June, 1995; Saul Kent. 2001. Aging Research Becomes A Science. Life Extension Magazine, December 2001.

[23] Anonymous. 2001. Reversing Aging Rapidly With Short-Term Calorie Restriction. Life Extension Magazine, December 2001.

[24] Fang’s original Chinese: “在生物科学的领域,没有相关博士学位的人是没有任何资格从事科研的,那些只有硕士学位的人尚且只能干干技术活,更不要说其他人了。” (See: Fang Zhouzi. The “Anthropological research” fellows. XYS19990801. 方舟子:《“人类学研究”的难兄难弟》, XYS19990801.)

[25] Fang’s original Chinese: “事实上我认为本科生甚至硕士研究生都没有必要写毕业论文。” (See: Fang Zhouzi. College students need not write graduation thesis. Xinhua Daily Telegraph. April 29, 2011. 方舟子:《大学生不必写毕业论文》,2011年4月29日《新华每日电讯》).

[26] Jean E. Pierog. RECIPE FOR LONGEVITY. healthlinks.net Newsletter.

[27] Weindruch R, Walford RL, Fligiel S, Guthrie D. 1986. The retardation of aging in mice by dietary restriction: longevity, cancer, immunity and lifetime energy intake. J Nutr. 116:641-54.

[28] Yi Ming. Old Stealer, Gigantic Cheater, Stealing First, Cheating Later: The Third Open Letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, The Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph. (亦明:《老偷巨骗,先偷后篇:给《新华每日电讯》总编辑解国记先生的第三封公开信》).

被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:21AM。
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XX.pdf (2.07 MB)
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 (4825 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 (3196 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 (10793 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.