The good doctor Xiao Chuanguo is in the news again, but this time it was all good for him. For the first time in years, a magazine in China reported that his famed "Xiao's Procedure" might not be what it was previously claimed to be.
The Science News (科学新闻) published an article titled "Who Can Evaluate Xiao Chuanguo?" on October 27. It reported that several families of the patients who had received Xiao's treatment a couple of years ago are now suing their hospital for false claims. A hospital in Henan Province had claimed that the success rate of the procedure is 85%. Yet these families could not find a single successful case within their ranks. Many patients are suffering from serious side effects from the operations.
The report also carried more damaging information. Through interviews to a few other doctors involved in the initial evaluation of Dr. Xiao's procedure, it revealed that none of them are qualified to provide a real, technical evaluation. They practically rubber-stamped on the decision based on the name-recognition of Xiao's adviser, Xiao's self-claimed fame abroad, and Xiao's self-claimed success rate alone. The magazine pointed out that there is so far no third-party study on the success rate.
The fact that Xiao Chuanguo had repeated sued Fang Zhouzi in court also played an important role. The magazine cited an unnamed surgeon from a Beijing hospital as saying that "there won't be a single expert who is willing to comment" Xiao's work. Everyone is scared of Xiao's bullying conduct. As if to underscore this point, the article listed two experts who had refused to be interviewed for this story.
After a period of staying low-profile, it is likely that the dispute surrounding the so called "Xiao's Procedure" will be heating up again in China.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A Proclaimer for each Criticism Article
There are disclaimers, and there are proclaimers.
Fang Zhouzi challenged the action by a local Wuhan court to deduct money from his wife's bank account without their knowledge on two accounts: a) neither he nor his wife had received any notice on the impending action; b) he and his wife had a formal agreement on the separation of their financial accounts. Based on these facts, the action by the local court is both inappropriate and illegal.
His challenge was predictably rejected. The court responded that a) they had previously sent out notifications (never mind that they were not received by their recipients) and b) Since the beneficiary Xiao Chuanguo did not have any pre-knowledge of the financial agreement between Fang Zhouzi and his wife, the agreement is declared as non-applicable to the case.
Absurd as the second point sounds, it actually might have some base in the vague language of the Chinese marital law, whose applicability to this case is questionable.
As a measure of defiance and avoid a similar scenario in the future, Fang Zhouzi is making a public proclaimer to "all those who had been and shall be criticized by him" that "Fang Zhouzi and his wife had already agreed to separate their financial matters. Those who are criticized by Fang Zhouzi shall have no right to dispatch local court officials to seize the legal properties of Fang Zhouzi's wife."
This proclaimer will be headlined in every future articles of his that criticizes any person, until the local Wuhan court returns the seized property.
Fang Zhouzi challenged the action by a local Wuhan court to deduct money from his wife's bank account without their knowledge on two accounts: a) neither he nor his wife had received any notice on the impending action; b) he and his wife had a formal agreement on the separation of their financial accounts. Based on these facts, the action by the local court is both inappropriate and illegal.
His challenge was predictably rejected. The court responded that a) they had previously sent out notifications (never mind that they were not received by their recipients) and b) Since the beneficiary Xiao Chuanguo did not have any pre-knowledge of the financial agreement between Fang Zhouzi and his wife, the agreement is declared as non-applicable to the case.
Absurd as the second point sounds, it actually might have some base in the vague language of the Chinese marital law, whose applicability to this case is questionable.
As a measure of defiance and avoid a similar scenario in the future, Fang Zhouzi is making a public proclaimer to "all those who had been and shall be criticized by him" that "Fang Zhouzi and his wife had already agreed to separate their financial matters. Those who are criticized by Fang Zhouzi shall have no right to dispatch local court officials to seize the legal properties of Fang Zhouzi's wife."
This proclaimer will be headlined in every future articles of his that criticizes any person, until the local Wuhan court returns the seized property.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Another Academician Who Plagiarized
Several days ago, Fang Zhouzi received copies of two published papers from an alert netter. The two papers were almost identical word-by-word, including the titles, abstracts, contents, and cited references. The only difference was an extra half-sentence added in the abstract of the latter paper. The first paper was published in December, 1998, by a pair of authors in Hunan University (湖南大学). The latter paper was published in September, 2003 by a different pair of authors from the same school. It was obvious that the second paper was a blatant practice of plagiarism.
One of the authors of the second paper was Zhu Yinghao (朱英浩), who is a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He had also been a professor at Hunan University starting in 2000, during which the second paper was published. However, he could not have been part of the research that was first published two years before his arrival there.
After Fang Zhouzi publicized the plagiarism case, he received two more papers that showed blatant plagiarism committed by the same academician and his co-author. One copied from a book and another from another paper, each with only minor text modifications.
One of the authors of the second paper was Zhu Yinghao (朱英浩), who is a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He had also been a professor at Hunan University starting in 2000, during which the second paper was published. However, he could not have been part of the research that was first published two years before his arrival there.
After Fang Zhouzi publicized the plagiarism case, he received two more papers that showed blatant plagiarism committed by the same academician and his co-author. One copied from a book and another from another paper, each with only minor text modifications.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"Unlikely Victim"?
UPI Asia reported the news that Fang Zhouzi's New Threads is recently blocked in China, as "an unlikely victim of China's censorship".
In reality, the site has been blocked more often than not. Some of its long-running mirror sites have also been blocked this time around, apparently for the safety and "harmony" ahead of the coming National Day celebration.
New mirror sites are being set up to get around the censorship.
In reality, the site has been blocked more often than not. Some of its long-running mirror sites have also been blocked this time around, apparently for the safety and "harmony" ahead of the coming National Day celebration.
New mirror sites are being set up to get around the censorship.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Local Chinese Court Steals Money from Fang Zhouzi's Wife
One of the most significant fraud case exposed by Fang Zhouzi was that involving Professor Xiao Chuanguo, a self-claimed world-famous urologist. The case first came to light in September, 2005, when Xiao Chuanguo was being nominated to become an Academician. Fang Zhouzi publicly accused Xiao Chuanguo for having engaged in various acts of exageration in his credentials.
Xiao Chuanguo's Academician candidacy was then denied by Chinese Academy of Science. Xiao Chuanguo blamed his lose entirely on Fang Zhouzi's words and sued the later in local courts in Wuhan, Beijing, as well as New York.
He won his case in Wuhan, whose court issued a few ridiculous justification for its verdict that had become running jokes on the Internet, such as the definition of "international journal," the validity of Xiao Chuanguo's award claim, and a procedure supposed to be named after him. The case gained its dramatic status after Xiao Chuanguo published a foul-mouthed open letter of his own and hundreds of Chinese scholars co-signed an open letter to support Fang Zhouzi.
After losing his appeal, Fang Zhouzi has refused to obey the court order of apologizing to Xiao Chuanguo and paying a fine. The case seemed to have disappeared from public view, especially after many officials of that local court, including the judge in the case, were later disciplined for corruption charges. Fang Zhouzi had assumed that the case was forgotten.
Until now.
Messages posted by Xiao Chuanguo's well known pseudo-name showed up in online forums lately, boasting that he had received monetary judgement from Fang Zhouzi. It was not until Fang Zhouzi was alerted of the messages when he discovered that a sum of more than 40,000 Yuan (5,840 USD) has disappeared from his wife's private bank account. Upon inquiry, the bank confirmed that they transferred the money at the order of the Wuhan local court.
The unusual and stealth way that the court has taken the money both surprised and angered Fang Zhouzi, as well as many of his supporters on New Threads. Fang Zhouzi vowed to fight for this unlawful case. He explained that he and his wife have maintained independent financial records and his wife is never involved in his efforts of exposing frauds that led to his various court troubles.
Xiao Chuanguo's Academician candidacy was then denied by Chinese Academy of Science. Xiao Chuanguo blamed his lose entirely on Fang Zhouzi's words and sued the later in local courts in Wuhan, Beijing, as well as New York.
He won his case in Wuhan, whose court issued a few ridiculous justification for its verdict that had become running jokes on the Internet, such as the definition of "international journal," the validity of Xiao Chuanguo's award claim, and a procedure supposed to be named after him. The case gained its dramatic status after Xiao Chuanguo published a foul-mouthed open letter of his own and hundreds of Chinese scholars co-signed an open letter to support Fang Zhouzi.
After losing his appeal, Fang Zhouzi has refused to obey the court order of apologizing to Xiao Chuanguo and paying a fine. The case seemed to have disappeared from public view, especially after many officials of that local court, including the judge in the case, were later disciplined for corruption charges. Fang Zhouzi had assumed that the case was forgotten.
Until now.
Messages posted by Xiao Chuanguo's well known pseudo-name showed up in online forums lately, boasting that he had received monetary judgement from Fang Zhouzi. It was not until Fang Zhouzi was alerted of the messages when he discovered that a sum of more than 40,000 Yuan (5,840 USD) has disappeared from his wife's private bank account. Upon inquiry, the bank confirmed that they transferred the money at the order of the Wuhan local court.
The unusual and stealth way that the court has taken the money both surprised and angered Fang Zhouzi, as well as many of his supporters on New Threads. Fang Zhouzi vowed to fight for this unlawful case. He explained that he and his wife have maintained independent financial records and his wife is never involved in his efforts of exposing frauds that led to his various court troubles.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Professor Fined for his Language
Two years ago, Professor Zhang Boting (张博庭) wrote a post in his blog answering a newspaper report, which criticizes hydro-power development. Being an expert on the subject, Zhang Boting rebuffed the arguemtns presented in the newspaper article and claimed the reporter as "ignorant and shameless" (无知无耻). In the article, he also labeled the reporter as a retard (弱智).
The reporter sued and won the case. Yesterday a lcoal court in Beijing sided with the reporter and decided that Zhang Boting has commited personal insult and therefore is liable to defamation. He was ordered to openly apologize and pay a fine of 2,000 Yuan (290 USD).
In the court proceddings, Zhang Boting defended himself by saying that the langauge was a precise description of the said reporter. The court did turn down the plantiff's initial request of 10,000 Yuan for emotional distress. There is no word if Zhang Boting is going to appeal.
Zhang Boting has been a frequent writer for New Thread, using a pen name 水博.
The reporter sued and won the case. Yesterday a lcoal court in Beijing sided with the reporter and decided that Zhang Boting has commited personal insult and therefore is liable to defamation. He was ordered to openly apologize and pay a fine of 2,000 Yuan (290 USD).
In the court proceddings, Zhang Boting defended himself by saying that the langauge was a precise description of the said reporter. The court did turn down the plantiff's initial request of 10,000 Yuan for emotional distress. There is no word if Zhang Boting is going to appeal.
Zhang Boting has been a frequent writer for New Thread, using a pen name 水博.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Did Einstein Believe in God?
That's the title of Fang Zhouzi's new book which just became available in China. The book has a subtitle "Fang Zhouzi Explains Famous Puzzling Cases in the History of Science" and is a collection of many essays and columns by the author previously published in newspapers and web sites.
In the Preface titled as "Scientists are humans too," the author made it clear that the book is about many controversies surrounding famous scientists and their discoveries of the past, some of which involved issues of personal integrity.
The book comes with high praise and recommendation by several famous Chinese scientists including Rao Yi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
