欢迎! 登陆 注册


The facts that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is a victim of long term character assassination and framing by Fang Zhouzi and his gangsters (8475 查看)

November 09, 2012 08:53AM
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

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:[www.2250s.com])

Originally posted online on Oct. 13, 2010

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.

被编辑1次。最后被亦明编辑于03/06/2014 10:26AM。
主题 发布者 已发表

The facts that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is a victim of long term character assassination and framing by Fang Zhouzi and his gangsters (8475 查看)

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:53AM

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

This forum powered by Phorum.