欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XXIX: Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying? (3253 查看)

August 12, 2013 12:36PM
【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 XXIX)



Xin Ge, Ph. D.
Columbia, South Carolina, USA


Why Fang Shi-min Was Awarded the John Maddox Prize (IV): Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying?

As I have established in the last Part of the Open Letter, Mr. Yuan Yue is a genuine “faker” by any standards. Then, why the John Maddox Prize winner Fang, who “has done much of what the science community aims, but often fails, to do - root out the fakers,” as the Nature editorial eulogized, failed to “root out the faker Yuan”? The answer is in The Four Cardinal Principles of Fang’s “root out the fakers” as I mentioned in the Part II of this letter:

1. If you are my enemy, I’ll root out you even though I know you are not a faker;

2. If you are my friend, I’ll never root out you even though I know you are a faker;

3. If you give me money, I’ll root out whomever you want me to, whether he is or isn’t a faker;

4. If you are with me, I’ll guarantee that you will never be rooted out, even though you are a faker.


Now, let’s examine to which category or categories Mr. Yuan belongs.

1. Fang’s Trumpeter

Mr. Yuan’s first appearance on the New Threads was in 2000, when two of his articles about music were published in the New Threads Monthly[1]. The first appearance of Yuan’s article in New Threads’ Newly Arrived was on September 20, 2000, the title was “Why Did Chen Xiaoning Cheat?”[2]

In 2005, Fang posted in his New Threads one of Yuan’s articles published in China Youth Daily, the same newspaper Fang was holding a column at the time[3]. Yuan’s article tells the story that how the controversial Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) defended its practice. Of course, Yuan didn’t pick the topic in random: a few months earlier, China Research Institute for Science Popularization (CRISP) invited CSICOP to visit China, and the institute set up an corresponding organization[4]. That move generated strong objections among Chinese science community, and Fang, who sued a scholar for libel because he called Fang “science cop” in 2003, wrote several articles to support the CSICOPs, and one of them was entitled “China Needs Science Cop.”[5] It appears that Yuan’s article was a part of an orchestrated campaign.

On Oct. 14, 2006, Fang published on his New Threads Yuan’s blog article, I Understand Fang Zhouzi More and More. Here are the first few sentences:

“I used to live in a same city with Fang Zhouzi, but I didn’t know him.

“Everyone says on the internet that his temper is irritable, his personality is vicious. I have no right to judge.

“What I do know is that I agree with most of his opinions, because we both were trained as biologists.

“Since I returned to China, especially after contacting many humanities kids, I think I have begun to understand Fang Zhouzi’s hot-temper. At the same time, I also understand why these kids dislike him.

“I know I am not a good science writer, Fang is not flawless either. However, it is doubtless that he is the best one in the science popularization circle.

“Because, as I have said a long time ago, the science writers associated with China’s general newspapers and comprehensive magazines are unqualified collectively.”[6]


From then on, Yuan’s touting of Fang began to escalate. On Dec. 6, 2008, Yuan wrote an article, telling his ways of finding “the opinions of mainstream science community,” which, in his and Fang’s dictionaries, are equivalent to “absolute truth.” According to Yuan, his first tier sources of the mainstream opinions are the original papers and reviews published in Nature and Science, as well as in other leading journals in their corresponding fields, such as Cell and Lancet; the second tier sources are science popularization magazines, such as Scientific American, New Scientist, and Discover; his third tier sources are the science articles published in the influential popular media, such as New York Times, The Times, The Guardian, the Reuters, CNN, and USA Today. And then Yuan wrote:

“Of course, you need to know English to read these materials. Sorry, besides learning your English well, I don’t think you have any other ways to solve the problem. It is reliable to say that the science popularization in Chinese media is unreliable. However, there is an exception, which is Fang Zhouzi. The articles written by him are very reliable, I have read [them] for many years, and I haven’t found any big mistakes. To those people who don’t read Fang’s articles because of disliking his personality, I have the following words to give you: it is you who has personality problem.”[7]

Of course, Fang immediately published the article on his website[8].

On Aug. 18, 2010, Yuan touted Fang again:

“I have said before, whenever a scientific dispute arises, the first thing to do is to listen to Fang Zhouzi, because till now, he hasn’t made mistakes. Of course you don’t have to believe my judgment. However, even if you don’t, you still should use his articles as references, because many writers working for the news media are copying Fang Zhouzi. You can see through the dirty secret by comparison.”[9]

In January 2011, Fang wrote a review on Yuan’s Life Gossips, praising Yuan’s science writings. Yuan must have been intoxicated by joy, he wrote:

“Thank Fang Zhouzi for writing a review on my Life Gossips. I still have the same words, in China’s science popularization circle, Old Fang’s level is the highest. His articles might not be the most scientific, might not be the most popularized, but they are the best combination of the two properties. Even more valuable is, the level of Old Fang’s articles is very stable, which is especially valuable.”[10]

About two months later, Yuan asked a person to talk about the subject only in his own expertise, and a person responded: “Fang Zhouzi talks a lot subjects not in his own expertise, how to judge whether he is right or wrong?” Yuan replied:

“As of now, everything Fang said is the opinion approved by the majority of experts, he won’t promote hidden agenda, that’s the difference.”[11]

There is no doubt that Yuan knew he was lying when he said that Fang “hasn’t made mistakes.” The fact is, the mistakes Fang made in his scifool articles have been exposed on the internet for more than 10 years, and even if you close your eyes, the news flying in the air will definitely punch your eardrums. It is even a bigger lie that Yuan said Fang won’t promote a hidden agenda. The fact is, everything Fang does in China is motivated by hidden agendas.

2. The Broken Trumpeter

Let’s take a look at a couple of examples to see how fake Mr. Yuan’s eulogies of Fang are.

A. Ractopamine

On Jan. 4, 2009, Yuan posted one of Fang’s articles on his blog, Serial Q&A on Environmental Protection and Food Safety (1): Food Additives[12]. According to Fang, the series was an invited submission to a competition organized by Alashan SEE Ecology Association, and Fang convened 4 of his top advisors, Dr. Sun Wenjun of Harbin Institute of Technology, Dr. Cheng E of Sensys Corp. in the United States, Ms. Wang Yanhong of Xinhua News Agency, and Ke Nan, a fake name with no true identity ever revealed, to write the articles[13]. In the first series of the Q&As, Fang answered the question “Are Lean Meat Powders in Animal Feeds Safe?” Fang’s answer: although Clenbuterol is not safe, there was a new, safe and legal substitute:

“In recent years, a drug called ractopamine is becoming the legal substitute for Clenbuterol. Differing from the latter, [the dosage of] ractopamine is very low, at 4.5-18 grams per ton of feeds, it could boost the leanness of pork. In addition, the metabolism rate of ractopamine in pig bodies is very fast, with low residue, and very low toxicity to human (at 67 micrograms per kg body weight, no adverse effects were observed.)”[14]

On the April Fool’s day in 2011, Fang published another article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, promoting ractopamine again:

“It’s toxicity to human is very low. Clenbuterol can cause symptoms such as elevated heart rate at the dosage of as low as 10 g per day, however, as much as 20,000 g of ractopamine is needed to manifest symptoms.

“Because of its low residue, pigs fed with ractopamine actually do not need to stop the drug before slaughter. If you eat 350 kg pork meat, or 15 kg pork liver per day, the ractopamine amount you take in is still in the safe range. Of course you could not eat that much meat or liver, therefore ractopamine is very safe.”[15]


Assuming that the average body weight of Chinese adults is 70 kg, then Fang’s recommended safe level of ractopamine is 285 g/kg, more than 200 folds of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) level for human specified by the U. S. government[16]. So, where did Fang get his standard?

In May 2013, Fang engaged himself in a fight with some members of the Scientific Squirrel Club (科学松鼠会), a science popularization group. One of Fang’s targets was Mr. Wang Zebin (Web ID Squirrel Yunwuxin), who was aware of Fang’s cheating or scifooling back in 2011, but had chosen to remain silent for 2 years for unknown reason(s), questioned the reliability of Fang’s numbers, and accused Fang of fooling general public, on May 25, 2013[17]. Fang replied by saying that his number was obtained from European Food Safety Authority’s Safety Evaluation of Ractopamine, and admitted that he misread the original text: “No adverse events occurred after the 0 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg dose. After application of 15 mg, 25 mg and 40 mg, there were nine reports of sensation of increase in heart rate and five reports of sensation of heart pounding.”[18]

The thing is, according to the EFSA report, the NOEL for human’s heart rate was 10 mg/person, the lowest NOEL for any other symptoms was 5 mg/person (see table below), then, the report must not be Fang’s basis. In other words, Fang was lying.


The Table 4 in the Safety Evaluation of Ractopamine by European Food Safety Authority
Please note that the NOEL for heart rate was 10 mg/person, or 143 g/kg body weight, two folds less than what Fang said.


Dr. Zhu Yi, an associate professor at China Agricultural University, who had been accused by Fang of all sort of things, including ignorance, fooling the public, TCM, and plagiarism since May 2013[19], searched the internet with key words ractopamine, 350kg, and 20,000mcg. Bingo! The only one hit has the following paragraph:

“So, in pigs fed ractopamine, how much will be safe to eat? A lot, as it happens. 350kg of pork muscle, or 15kg of pork liver per day, to be exact. ‘That means you can eat as many as five whole pigs (assum ing that a pig is 70kg) every day for the rest of your life, and still be below the ‘no effect’ level,’ says Dr Chee.”[20]

Then, who is this “Dr. Chee”? According to the article, Dr Chee Liung Wun is the “regulatory and technical manager of Elanco,” the very manufacturer of ractopamine[21]!

So, why did Fang use the manufacturer’s data to promote the manufacturer’s product in China, where the product is banned? And why did Fang lie about his key source of information? Of course, only Fang and Yuan know the answers. And it is most likely because of this, they certify each other’s scifooling as “very reliable,” “won’t promote hidden agenda.”

B. Golden Rice

By now, it seems that every Chinese knows that the biggest business of Fang-Yuan Partnership is to promote GMO in China. And the mean they have been using to reach that end is nothing but cheating and fooling. For example, Fang has been repeatedly telling Chinese people the following story since 2004: the rice Chinese people eat daily is unhealthy, or harmful to people’s health, because of its lack of vitamin A and rich in phytate which binds iron and leads to iron deficiency. The Golden Rice was created to correct these shortcomings by inserting seven genes from five species: four of them were designed to synthesize -carotene, the other three were designed to degrade phytate, to store iron, and to facilitates iron absorption in human bodies, respectively[22].


A lie repeated at least six times in 8 years in China’s print media
On Sept. 7, 2012, right after the outbreak of the Golden Rice Scandal in China, Xinhua Daily Telegraph published Fang’s article, Talk about GM Rice (His original title was Talk about Golden Rice.) In the article, Fang repeated what he had been saying since 2004: the Golden Rice contains 7 transgenes from five species to overcome the shortcomings of common rice. The portion highlighted in yellow is Fang’s description of Golden Rice, the sentence in the red box says: “The Golden Rice was transformed by 7 genes from 5 species!”


Dr. Chen Tingchao, a Ph. D. in molecular biology from the University of Southern California, and one of Yuan’s classmates at Fudan University, questioned the accuracy of Fang’s description in September 2012: ① The level of phytate in rice is not high; ② Phytate is an antioxidant, has anti-cancer properties; ③ The anemia situation among Chinese people is not really troublesome; ④ The iron-rich rice is useless to the children younger than two years old; ⑤ The Golden Rice does not contain transgenes to overcome the phytate problem, because these enzymes or protein would be inactivated by cooking[23].

Fang, as well as Yuan who has certified Fang’s scifooling wholesale, ignored Dr. Chen’s questioning, as usual, despite the fact that the newspaper published the lie was notified[24]. However, because Fang was trying to monopoly the “science popularization” market in China, especially on the GMO issues, he suddenly launched an attack on Dr. Zhu Yi and Mr. Wang Zebin in May 2013. Ironically, although Fang has been accusing them of various crimes, their real crime is that they also support, and promote, the commercialization of GM food in China, therefore she is Fang and Yuan’s business competitor (more on this in the next part of the Open Letter). Partly because of such fierce and vicious business competition, Dr. Zhu sighed: “Nowadays, it makes me sick to hear the words ‘science popularization.’”[25]

On July 19, 2013, Dr. Zhu fought back. First, she questioned Fang’s scifooling that if the nutrient composition of Golden Rice was altered, people should be able to taste the difference[26], and then, she wrote:

“Fang Zhouzi also said that ‘the Golden Rice was transformed by a total of 7 genes from 5 species.’ However, the second generation Golden Rice only used phytoene synthase gene from maize and carotene desaturase gene from a soil bacterium, a total of 3 genes from two species, maize and Erwinia sp. His nonsense has become a target for the anti-GMO people, thus showing the danger of fake science-popularization by a faker.”[27]

Since Fang was fighting against Zhu at the time, he could not afford to ignore Zhu’s questioning, so about 4 hours after Dr. Zhu’s post, Fang finally admitted his years-long mistake:

“About a Golden Rice, besides being transformed by 4 genes to increase the carotene content, it was also transformed by 3 genes to increase the iron content: what I based on was an introduction in a textbook, Genetics: Analysis of Genes and Genomes (5th edition, p.566. I have checked the newest 2012 edition, it still says so.) Maybe there was such an attempt, but [the rice] was not planted. The second generation Golden Rice currently promoted does not contain the latter three genes indeed. I’ll delete the portion about iron.”[28]

The fact is, the 5th edition of Genetics: Analysis of Genes and Genomes was written by Drs. Daniel L Hartl and Maryellen Ruvolo, neither is a plant biologist[29]. Furthermore, the book was published in 2001, 4 years before the publication of the second generation Golden Rice report[30]. And such a book was used by Fang, the “very reliable” and “the best science writer in China,” as the only source for his “science popularization,” till 2012. Yet Fang was awarded the John Maddox Prize for his “perseverance and broad achievement in the area of science communication.[31] Is it a joke or a plot?

If anyone is wondering what the consequence of Dr. Zhu’s fraud busting against the biggest fraud in human history, then here it is: she was finally busted and silenced by Fang: on Aug. 6, 2013, Fang wrote a formal letter to the Institute of Botany at CAS, the Office of the State Council Academic Degrees Committee, and China Agricultural University, demanding the revocation of the doctoral degree awarded to her for the reasons of data fabrication, plagiarism, misappropriation, and many other things[32]. Whether the judges of the John Maddox Prize want to characterize the incident as a “root[ing] out the faker,” or a “personal dispute,” is anyone’s guess. As for Mr. Yuan, although he shrewdly remained silent on the matter, I have no doubt that he is fully behind Fang. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that no matter how many mistakes Fang makes, and how stupid these mistakes are, Mr. Yuan will always tout Fang as the “best science writer in China,” because he himself is second to none but Fang: if Fang goes down the drain, Yuan will definitely goes to hell!


The faker was planked!
Left: The paragraph of Genetics: Analysis of Genes and Genomes published in 2001(pp.565-566) has been plagiarized by the fake science writer Fang for at least six times since 2004;
Right: The schematic diagrams of the Golden Rice, published in 2005[30].


3. Fang’s Gunman

Mr. Yuan is not only Fang’s top touter, he is also one of Fang’s most vicious, cold-blooded gunmen, in every front.

A. Environmentalists

Everyone in China knows that Fang hates GreenPeace and the environmentalists, calling them terrorists, pseudo-environmentalists, respectively. Although Yuan admits that the environmental movement in the West started from the hippies[33], and he brags all the time that he knows hippies, has been greatly influenced by hippies, and is a pseudo-hippie[34], and he has received financial support from GreenPeace[35], his attacks on the environmentalists are not less fierce than Fang, calling them all kind of names, such as pseodo-environmental protection organization, extreme environmental protection organization, and, of course, pseudo-environmentalists [36]. He even linked the "notorious dictator" Joaquín Balaguer of the Dominican Republic to the environmentalists[37].

On July 13, 2011, China Youth Daily published an article by Mr. Lu Yuegang, telling the story of China’s water management[38]. In the article, Mr. Lu also expressed his personal opinion against building dams for electricity. Fang, who had been an ardent promoter and supporter of dam building in China since 2005, when he was paid by the hydropower developers to take an “ecological tour” in Yunnan[39], scolded Lu and his article by saying:

“This article is nothing but hackneyed anti-dam sayings motivated by politics. Chinese bookmen have always been like to pretend to be water experts since the ancient time (the so called pseudo-scientists by Foreign Policy) to enjoy the pleasure of ruling a country. [They] should go to Shuibo to receive some education.”[40]

Shuibo is the web ID of Zhang Boting, the deputy secretary general of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, a Fang’s fanatical follower, a self-admitted plagiarist, who arranged Fang’s trip to Yunnan in 2005[39].

11 minutes after Fang initiated the attack, Yuan followed up:

“Alas, the article by Lu Yuegang is indeed badly written. As a journalist, [you’d] better not to talk about ‘ruling the country’ lightly.”[41]

42 minutes later, Dr. Sun Wenjun, another heavy weight follower of Fang’s, jointed in the attackers[42].

The following is Mr. Lu’s response to the attacks, written to one of his friends:

“I have read a few attacks by the ‘interest group,’ they were really frantic, like bitches squalling. What I don’t understand is Fang Zhouzi and Local Motor [Yuan]. I respected them before. Why did they have the same squalling tone, and were so confident with their conclusion? It seems that the problem was caused by Fang and Yuan’s knowledge structure, their brains were damaged by ‘scientism’ and the feeling of authority. Furthermore, [they] know little about the history and current situation of China’s water management. They don’t know that the ‘science’ of (water management) is both science and politics. My twenty years’ continuous research and study on the water management materials makes me believe my judgment even stronger.

“Also, the level of the article Fang linked to is too low. It is also my first time to taste the taste of the ‘academic overlord’ Fang . Tell you the truth, his pose surprised me. Why couldn’t a scientist or commentator speak nicely, based on scientific spirit – seeking for knowledge and the truth -, discussing questions graciously and politely?”[43]


Indeed, many Chinese thought that Fang’s arrogance, his rudeness, and his unscrupulousness were caused by his belief in scientism. However, more and more people are realizing that Fang believes in neither science nor scientism, what he believes in is extreme individualism or egoism: he will do whatever it takes, at any costs, for his own personal gains, and science is nothing but a useful weapon or tool for that purpose. That’s exactly why he and his gangsters are called Science Nazi[44].

B. Traditional Chinese Medicine

Fang’s hatred towards TCM is well-known, and it seems that that hatred was one of the reasons he was awarded the John Maddox Prize[45]. So, Yuan, who admits the effectiveness of TCM[46], and the hippie influence on him should have made him at least neutral to TCM, despises TCM like a garbage[47]. For example, it is well accepted that the discovery of artemisinin (Qinghaosu) was based on a TCM record[48]. However, according to Fang, TCM not only didn’t help the discovery, it hindered the discovery, so the discovery is a shame, instead of glory, of TCM[49].

How so?

The antimalarial application of Artemisia annua was first recorded in a book written by Ge Hong (葛洪, 283-343). However, about a thousand years later, Li Shizhen (李时珍, 1518-1593) separated the plant into two different “species,” one called Green Flower Wormwood (青花蒿), the other called Yellow Flower Wormwood (黄花蒿). Ironically, the original name of Artemisia annua was called Green Wormwood, but artemisinin exists only in Yellow Flower Wormwood. Li’s mistake was corrected later, by many Chinese scientists[50], including Tu Youyou, the winner of Lasker DeBakey Clinical Research Award in 2011 for the leading role she played in the discovery[51]. However, to destroy TCM, Fang intentionally ignore the historical facts, insisting that the Chinese record was wrong, so TCM not only didn’t do anything good, but misled the research.

In 2006, Yuan published an article in Life Weekly, entitled Samoa Medicine and Aids Disease, introducing the discovery of prostratin aided by the local Samoa medical tradition. In the article, Yuan hailed the discovery this way: “Anti-Aids, Folk Medicine Might Win a Great Victory!”[52]. The discovery of prostratin and the discovery of artemisinin share essentially the same nature: modern medicine discovered new drugs based on alternative medicine records. Therefore, you might think Yuan should have a different opinion from Fang’s on the artemisinin matter, right? Wrong. In 2009, Yuan posted an article on his blog, entitled Can You Give Me Another Example? In the article, Yuan first said that the artemisinin is the only example of TCM’s value, then he asked: Based on what [the discover of] artemisinin should be attributed to TCM?[53], meaning TCM doesn’t deserve the credit.

Ironically, about one year later, Mr. Yuan stole from the western science writers to write his “Fecal Therapy,” and the method was invented by TCM, and by Ge Hong also[54], but obviously, Yuan didn’t realize that he had just given himself “another example.”

On April 5, 2012, Nature News reported the appearance of artemisinin-resistant malaria[55]. Yuan seemed so happy about the news that he posted the following message on his microblog:

“Artemisinin has been regarded by the ignorant masses as the victory of TCM. In 2005, resistance to the drug by malaria was discovered for the first time in western Cambodia, and the resistance strain tends to spread all over the world. TCM can do nothing about it. By analyzing the genome of the parasite, American scientists identified the gene fragments produced the mutations. The rest part of the work is to use the information to screen for new drugs.”[56]

Yes, Yuan literally celebrates TCM’s failure or incapability, just like every Fang’s gangster fervently celebrates whenever they hear a piece of negative news about Xiao’s Procedure. Does anyone understand the evilness of these disgusting lowly creatures?

C. Dr. Xiao Chuanguo

Of course, Fang’s biggest enemy is Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, so Xiao is Yuan’s most hated enemy also. On the day when Fang was attacked, Yuan wrote:

“Everyone says that Fang Zhouzi has made too many enemies and that’s why he was caught with such a big trouble. In fact, Fang Zhouzi is far from the only person in the world who has so many enemies. However, his way of fraud busting is very distinct, he doesn’t rely on scolding, he doesn’t play word games, and he doesn’t resort to force. He only relies on facts, doing things according to evidence. In such a fraud busting, those who are busted have no way to fight back, all they can do is admitting their mistakes. Those people who are unwilling to do so can only resort to violence.

“That’s the power of science and reason.

“He has not made mistakes in his fraud busting so far, not because he is especially knowledgeable or talented, but because he has conducted scientific research for many years, has mastered a whole set of scientific way of thinking, knowing from where to find the mainstream opinions of the science community. In other words, his backup force is the smartest brains in the whole world.

“So far, none of those who disagree with his opinions can bring out evidence, so they put various labels on him, such as ‘Scientology Hierarch,’ ‘the representative of American imperialism,’ etc. The biggest defect of these people is overconfidence, they always feel they are the smartest people, they prefer to trust their own instinct than trust the collective intelligence of the majority of top scientists. Fang Zhouzi, on the other hand, puts aside his personal likes and dislikes, looking at evidence only.

“This is the biggest humility, this is the truest love.”[57]


Well, I can assure you that most Chinese people will end up with vomiting or cursing after reading Yuan’s article now. And if the article is understood by its antisense, you will get the absolute truth.

On the day when Xiao was arrested, Sept. 21, 2010, Yuan posted the following message:

“[The finding] is the same as we guessed. This incident should not be over as yet, [the police] should investigate thoroughly those ‘scientists’ who cheat in the name of science, and their accomplices.”[58]

Two hours later, Yuan posted an article on his blog, saying that Xiao’s force in China’s academic community is super strong, that’s why he had been able to perform his procedure despite Fang’s opposition, and that why he had won the lawsuit against Fang in Wuhan[59].

Taken together, the two messages Yuan posted after Xiao’s arrest showed clearly that Yuan, Fang, and Fang’s gangsters, the so called “we,” planned immediately to use the incident to eliminate their enemies all together.

On the day of the court hearing of the case, Oct. 9, 2010, Yuan posted:

“If Xiao is sentenced to less than 11 years in jail, it will be the shame of this country.”[60]

On March 28, 2011, less than two weeks after Xiao’s release from jail, Guangzhou-based New Express Daily published an interview with Dr. Xiao. The title of the interview was: “I Have Never Hired Thugs to Hurt Other People.”[61] Yuan’s comment: “Fuck your mother, New Express Daily”[62].

On Nov. 7, 2012, Dr. Yuan commented complacently on Fang’s John Maddox Prize:

“In a certain sense, many anti-Fang people including Xiao Chuanguo also contributed to [Fang’s receiving] the award. The contribution of Fang Zhouzi in science popularization is historic, this prize to certain extent indicates the acknowledgement of his value by mainstream science community. As for whether China’s media and public intellectuals dislike him or not, who cares?”[63]

Well, Yuan could not speak more clearly about his purpose of nominating Fang for the prize, and the judges of the prize obviously misunderstood Yuan’s true intention, or didn’t they?

4. Fang’s Puppy

As I have mentioned before, Mr. Yuan is famous for his arrogance and pretentiousness, or to be exact, he is a genuine snob. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for people to understand why he would lick Fang’s boots like a puppy dog. What more unbelievable is, Yuan touts Fang by lying.

In December 2008, Mr. Yuan was criticized by Dr. Li Miao, a physics professor at the University of Science and Technology of China. According to Fang, what Dr. Li said was: “I think to write science popularization articles, it is better to have professional knowledge. I have never dared to write about nuclear physics, even though the distance [from nuclear physics] to mine is not too far.” Dr. Li believed that Yuan had no capability to tell the truth from false in medical problems, he was a jerk, a fool[64].

Of course, had Dr. Li’s opinion prevailed, both Fang and Yuan would have lost their jobs. And here is Fang’s defense for Yuan, as well as for himself:

“The different scientific disciplines and specializations have common and overlapping areas. Although some disciplines look like different, they actually belong to the same family. For example, the basic studies in both biology and medicine are the same (called ‘biomedicine’ internationally), Li Miao believes that because Local Motor was trained in molecular biology, so he has no capability to judge medical matters, which actually indicates that Li Miao doesn’t know what is ‘biomedicine.’ Both I and Local Motor have columns in Well-Being, so I have read some of his articles related to medical problems. I believe that he is fully qualified (in fact, people trained in biology have more professional understanding on the basic medical problem, not clinical problem, than physicians.)”[65]

In other words, without Fang’s certification, Yuan would have been expelled from the science popularization circle a long time ago.

In January 2011, more than a year after the publication of Yuan’s Life Gossips, Fang wrote a review on the book. The fact is, Fang rarely writes reviews on Chinese books, because he, like Yuan, despises Chinese books. No wonder Yuan was so flattered that he had to thank Fang publicly. Then, what did Fang write about the author and the book? Here it is:

“It is normal in America for the people with advanced degrees in science to do science and technology reports and science popularization. However, it is a new thing in China. It is even rarer for a person who has studied overseas to be a science journalist [in China]. I am not aware of another example, which makes Yuan very distinct in China’s news media.

“‘Life Gossips’ is Yuan Yue’s column in Life Weekly. Although the name sounds wacky, the contents are in fact very serious, popularizing the interesting progresses in life sciences. According to Yuan’s own introduction, every day he glances through several top international science journals, the websites of science popularization magazines, and foreign mainstream media’s science sections, searching for the newest reports related to life sciences for his own writing. Although this is not writing based on the first hand academic papers, the sources of his information are nonetheless relatively reliable. Also, because Yuan Yue has professional background of multiple years’ study and research on life sciences, he is able to digest the materials, unlike some science and technology reporters who could only compile foreign reports with limited knowledge, so the overall accuracy of the contents is guaranteed.”[66]


Fang’s approval of Yuan’s way of science writing is like that the fake doctorate is issued a Ph. D. degree equivalency. I am sure that Yuan has shown the certificate to his bosses, whoever they are.

In July 2012, Fang was hired by Pan Haidong as the Chief Science Advisor of hudong.com, and Yuan, as well as many core members of Fang’s gangsters, became the lower level Science Advisor. One month later, Yuan nominated Fang for the John Maddox Prize.


Reorganizing Fang’s gangsters into a “Science Advisory Board”
On July 21, 2012, hudong.com (now baike.com) announced the hiring of a “Science Advisory Board” headed by Fang Zhouzi. Please note that Pan Haidong has been involved in a CV fraud, Fang Zhouzi is a serial plagiarist, Zhao Nanyuan has been following Fang since 2000 and famous for his ignorance, Zhang Boting is a self-admitted plagiarist and a representative of hydropower force in China, Qiao Weihua is a GMO promoter, and Yuan, or course, has amassed all these characteristics.


5. Concluding Remarks

In the above, I have not only showed why the fraudulent fraud buster Fang hasn’t “rooted out the faker Yuan,” but also showed why the faker Yuan nominated the evil Fang for the John Maddox Prize. The two imposters rely upon each other to survive, to prosper, and to cheat. In Fang’s own words: “In this ice-cold world, [we] need to hold together to keep warm.”[67]

Yes, the fakers feel cold even in a steamy hot summer. What a pity!

【Please read the PDF file for references.】




被编辑1次。最后被亦明编辑于08/12/2013 12:37PM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying.docx.pdf (1.42 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXII) (5001 查看) 附件

亦明 April 14, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXIII: The Bt Corn Case (4449 查看) 附件

亦明 April 21, 2013 05:29PM

Part XXIV: The U. S. President Case (5408 查看) 附件

亦明 April 28, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXV: The Michigan State University Case (2290 查看) 附件

亦明 May 19, 2013 10:47AM

Part XXVI: David Cyranoski’s “Brawl in Beijing” Is a Fraudulent and Malicious News Report (3937 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 03:36PM

Part XXVII: Albert Yuan’s Nomination Is Filled with Lies and Malice (3787 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 04:55PM

Part XXVIII: Who Is Albert Yuan the Nominator? (4402 查看) 附件

亦明 August 04, 2013 02:49PM

Part XXIX: Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying? (3253 查看) 附件

亦明 August 12, 2013 12:36PM

Part XXX: Why Was Albert Yuan Invited to Nominate Fang? (9046 查看) 附件

亦明 August 20, 2013 04:28PM

Part XXXI: Fangangsters (I): Yu Guangyuan, the God Father (7236 查看) 附件

亦明 September 25, 2013 08:01PM



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.