![Rank: 2](static/image/common/star_level2.gif)
- 积分
- 178
- 威望
- 178
- 包包
- 684
|
以下是读者评论
* x8 j. ]1 o! [( J8 v+ W* JInkshadow wrote:- a7 ?5 F# D0 i; D; k
Oct 7th 2010 5:46 GMT% X0 l# }# ?2 W7 ~: @2 G! T5 A
% _/ m/ O6 n m* oOnce again,I feel deeply disappointed about The Economist's article and its author. First, As mentioned in the article,China has no particular offcial organisations to deal with such scientific fruads,you have to rely on scientists' consciousness and folk organasations.Without these platforms'(like Xin Yu Si) obeservation and supervision,driving by filthy lucre,the situation of scientific fraud in China may getting increasingly severe.+ \! A) s3 s- D' L3 D- r8 ?9 `+ A
]2 S+ f0 K, O( U8 V$ NSecond,there is a fundamental difference between Xin Yu Si(New Threads) and da zi bao. Most allegations of scientific fraud posted on New Threads are based on facts, and only based on facts, you could reveal indecent scientists' misconducts(like New Threads has done before and what it is doing now).While anybody could post any accusation as they like on da zi bao, most of the accusations were unreasonable,fabricated and senseless.Now you can see one of the countless differences bewteen the two.There is no link between them.unless you want to archieve your ulterior goals so you deliberately distort it(yes ,shame on you The Economist).
8 Q' l$ q# x" X3 p* v- g
6 j& V; \8 @! O( EThird, as far as I know,there is no single successful case of Dr Xiao’s surgery.more worse, Dr Xiao’s procedure could lead patients to disable.Why this has not been mentioned in the article?shame on you The Economist again.5 b+ g) e) {7 a. Q% V
Recommend (53)
; n, w6 @" a/ Z+ e9 l; PPermalink
! ^' s( W( `! c8 \2 TReport abuse
9 V$ r" s/ x7 `' e: ahooahhooah wrote:" d; D- o7 ]6 a0 H: Y& L+ P4 d9 |, \
Oct 7th 2010 7:48 GMT9 p; P4 {4 b) V7 H* H
2 e. L' g% H) U! V3 N b, B
In your second paragraph, you wrote:8 @/ y2 Y, j( s" ~
“…
5 a6 D5 g7 x9 V4 XEven more extraordinary (or perhaps not, considering that he had been detained for seven days without access to a lawyer), he confessed his guilt on television, on September 28th….”0 ~8 m+ i) p& n9 i6 ^0 B& j$ R. x0 V
! g) W0 N: n# Q, a% DThe ‘without access to a lawyer’ words would too easily be misinterpreted as ‘denied access’ for western audience. Beside, can you backup your source of information that Xiao was indeed ‘without access to a lawyer’?- v4 K4 U7 q$ n- I( l+ J, N
# F0 }2 H) S- L& ~* R
Your neglected to report identities of the arrested ‘gang’ (one of them is Xiao’s relative), gathered evidences by the cops and earlier confessions by the ‘gang’, is no doubt undermining the severity of the crime and perhaps even misleading readers into not knowing that Xiao has confessed that he is the mastermind who paid 100,000rmb for the violent attacks.) A1 \/ a$ F: y& J& J m- r) ]+ u
5 I/ A: t& C# R3 `0 M" }2 F! X6 U
Your trying to draw parallels of New Threads blog to ‘da zi bao (big-character posters)’ is absolutely inappropriate. Perhaps, as you have written: “…longer memories of the hysteria of the Cultural Revolution…”, without real research, it maybe appropriate for you to disqualify yourself for the comparison.' p% W) W& ~! E5 \$ L" v6 l8 N
* P4 S Y, u" l$ _) v% J6 p
I don’t know if the name of Phil Disley on the corner of the comic, is the author of this article. If it is, it should be commended for the creative graphic. As one of your loyal readers with high opinion of your magazine in the past, I must tell you I am very disappointed with the journalistic essence of this article.7 G( G& D5 Z# O7 F; r* [
* P ]" k) \1 f" {( q; V1 ^# p
This report, it seems to be a collection of bits and pieces of words from all the other English media, at best, is a well done chop-suey.
* N1 T; l1 l/ f: ZRecommend (36)
5 E; i. j6 a7 D2 o nPermalink
2 s' ]7 r/ q+ z% m O* ]Report abuse' @2 r4 |; k/ V8 D
cul de castor wrote:
4 R. {& h. R& L6 o1 D' M' P/ SOct 7th 2010 7:49 GMT# H4 z9 t" |3 O0 k) f2 _
5 Q- S% a( z: n
You may not be surprised to learn that, during an interview at a local scientific manuscript editing company, I was offered a large sum of money to "ghost write" articles for Chinese scientists so that they may be locally promoted. The payment sum depended on article length, journal impact, and timeliness. The potential employer basically told me something to the effect, "You have good ideas, just write them down, give them to me, and I will pay you money." The agent even factored in the business for me; citing China's population, the percentage of medics and scientists and that each would need ~10 papers/year. How's that for working "in the black"?3 Z+ }: X! a8 t% s
Recommend (32)! H& z/ A* U% i1 T
Permalink
; N% ^5 n9 o' p" QReport abuse
' g* @8 }% y8 g ]. H+ J$ Wxysgroup wrote:4 M; y' s, i' e5 Z/ M
Oct 7th 2010 8:21 GMT5 g1 e6 x5 Z/ Q' {7 X0 I, P
$ a0 b ^- |9 m# A! z' \5 E8 q+ MThose accusations we made on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure websites were not at all odd.
% H w# ^' e- i) V; n) p1 l4 o! R) X& c. J
1. Beaumont hospital who conducted the pilot study in the US provided false information in order to lure patients to their clinic trials. Beaumont hospital, in their responses to patients' inquiries that were posted by the patients on those websites, lied that the procedure is "now standard of care" in China and is "done everyday in hospitals in China", and suggested patients to go to China for the surgery.7 E$ S+ h2 G& G, y, d
1 g" \ T6 Q3 `& F
We provided our evident on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure to expose those lies, so that potential patients could not be cheated and hurt.* k- a- d" x3 p: b" u. m2 @* w1 O, f
' T& P4 r. U' g' o4 N0 c8 x8 d
2. You mentioned the publication and the "common knowledge" regrading Beaumont's results, but you ignored that the results were seriously questioned by Editorial Comments published on the same issue, including:# F4 t' S# N( K1 @
! m: u5 Q. P# x1 Q7 L6 m j"the results of the study by Peters et al are the first to challenge the excellent, previously published results of nerve rerouting that showed up to 85% success". p/ h" f3 x, ^; b, H
( Q4 N% L& R: [7 Q"the clinical benefit of the procedure is not at all similar to previous (Dr. Xiao's) reports"
% c8 C$ q: w. y5 m3 A/ P6 y# M4 Q0 o& E6 u1 o% Q2 Y( w5 Y9 l
"The fact ... is troubling in light of the report of 87% success with 110 children with spina bifida presented by Xiao"
4 b; u) ~2 A8 R J* n1 H9 P* w! N0 k4 Y) t, N7 S2 E7 C$ ]8 J
"Xiao reported that more than 87% of 110 patients gained sensation and continence within 1 year. In comparison, the current patients undergoing the identical procedure with the help of Xiao himself only showed a modest improvement"$ J% _/ z5 j. u3 O8 N9 s
! g* |! l2 G$ j" D"Unless the innovators provide a sound argument and data for the validity of the procedure, there is a great danger of its improper and rapid adaptation by patients and the medical community at large"$ |7 I# D3 N4 h/ B: v
5 O- m# u" t7 p; S5 y- @7 \We provided those information on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure, so that potential patients could understand what the procedure really is.5 P# r/ G( G- {! ^9 W
Recommend (32)
/ D( u9 m; @* |& x! IPermalink
9 j; m# T3 Q9 v s2 v8 c% U+ CReport abuse
) X" o2 f4 K1 ^8 MRedHab wrote:+ F3 w/ c8 e+ S3 @4 _2 F
Oct 7th 2010 9:55 GMT5 T h U! A" B1 N. f. O
% E' f; A% P2 V9 H% nWestern scientists can behave just as badly - witness the 2001 personal attacks by the environmentalists and Scientific American magazine against Bjorn Lomborg and his Skeptical Environmentalist book for questioning their gospel.
4 e5 q! L" N, B& M; B/ RRecommend (18)- r- I) ?7 K; V o4 |/ K, S3 Y; K" G) A& d
Permalink! X$ O( T0 y- H3 V% _
Report abuse+ x5 V% T& c( t; G1 Q( j/ I; ^
mtangent wrote:& X+ L0 s) ^" b
Oct 7th 2010 11:03 GMT
8 Y2 E, c& X S% C" B+ ~0 N! Y6 ]& e
This is not just a science problem; it is a window into Chinese culture, business, politics, & law in general.
7 P* o' Q) d7 ~' @1 y" c3 GOf course, the rest of the world isn't perfect, but by my western standards, This Chinese situation seems like a disaster.& e; K' ?8 m9 R4 o3 E
Recommend (30)# Z; a( A5 F4 F7 a# F9 L' f
Permalink
& C9 E9 B+ F, r3 b$ Z9 zReport abuse
$ n( g6 M$ w8 |' y6 u. r6 y2 jFirstAdvisor wrote:
: Y# S) s' D# v8 h- |Oct 7th 2010 11:28 GMT" I4 F) n. I1 H! K
1 J' K0 ~, A' ], i
Based on the description of The Economist, the present situation for scientists in China is exactly the same as that for doctors in Western nations, especially the USA and Canada. There is no government organization that oversees the occupation. Doctors have their own organization which is their only authority, and governments have no power over them. It is legally impossible for a patient to have a doctor charged, arrested, and tried for committing a crime; all allegations against doctors can only be heard by the doctors' own internal association, never by the criminal courts of the dept. of justice of a nation.' X @5 [- n, h$ ~* R8 C: X* q% r
% z+ F4 F8 _( o5 K$ V# H( c/ d: bSo I fail to see what The Economist is making a fuss about. If the present system is good enough for doctors in the Western world, I don't grasp why it isn't good enough for scientists in China.$ R; Q0 C' N) @
Recommend (17)
+ c# H: ~% ?' a* P' B# m3 e2 j' y+ hPermalink
6 m0 r3 k; T4 n- l6 HReport abuse
+ W4 c! p2 b; l# i1 }- |$ cBWGIA wrote:9 q# z$ _# F t4 y# _8 F
Oct 8th 2010 12:11 GMT
; } g9 Y }5 `. q$ s t+ z' d2 X- w2 H. r5 N+ o
I think it's worth noting that abstracts of posters and presentations given at conferences are perfectly acceptable as "publications", and are sometimes cited in published papers.* f0 x& t7 {) U, r* J
Recommend (13)* d7 v0 O1 \$ [* r0 g7 h3 Q1 H
Permalink
9 l- C/ ?% h! n1 tReport abuse
7 P1 b; E/ ^6 R& _$ h& e0 mFirstAdvisor wrote:
5 p: U) O5 {7 _+ K5 c/ t/ COct 8th 2010 1:24 GMT, x# z, [5 s% N. T, T
( g0 G4 L2 Y$ j1 h) o3 E2 N
There is a hugely superior report on these subjects in today's edition website of the New York Times, 'Rampant Fraud Threat to China's Brisk Ascent.'
0 C0 N, e; Y3 E i- i; k# H$ URecommend (19)% r' |2 h' C: Z1 {# o
Permalink
3 x( p; Z. {! z4 h2 S& XReport abuse
' q; c! b' u3 v. z8 U4 Onewphilo wrote:. `$ D/ d# U+ n; @8 B
Oct 8th 2010 2:15 GMT
$ L' a! K+ ^4 y& Q' o9 [0 `4 g* O; P# Q$ ]$ U1 F' E1 ~( I
So, the Chinese scientists gave the West what it needed to succeed: the compass and the gun powder.
# P/ q8 w( U5 B1 d. uIn kind, the West gave the Chinese scientists what they needed to succeed: the copy & paste document editing features . j5 q7 M, P5 g: l) K# S' t+ Z# c
Recommend (19)9 R, B2 a0 F# B' [* }: O
Permalink
- u* z/ W3 Q; ZReport abuse. j1 J! [' Y0 m0 ~. {4 ?0 C
convection wrote:
$ v) T6 j' r/ C/ tOct 8th 2010 2:37 GMT$ ~; F9 e' |6 u6 B
) Z% E& j. q9 ?& sAs a chinese scientist and as a visiting scholar in USA,I totally agree with what Inkshaddow pointed out.7 ^- s/ |2 j/ s; m C
This article lacks insights and give confusing message.
7 I" U! m" {# {) D: L/ l& AThe author,apparently,hadn't done his homework well.Itis especially dispointing when I expect the voice from the trust worthy institute like Economist , should have helped expose and spread the information about the truth.To doing so in china, it means potential or real risk like Fang siming and Fang xuanchang had been attacked by gangs hired by Dr. Xiao.
6 o( Y7 x, k. p# }( |' x( {5 J% |, M0 l* V: Y' C' C( y' X
That is really a shame on the author,what you did is just like a tourist gave an amature report on whaty don't understand.: B B0 o. L8 N+ G: D- X: V
Recommend (19)+ _' W4 o1 j4 k9 C
Permalink
; ~# {1 q* U+ a: I7 f( O1 a8 U8 eReport abuse+ c' A5 W% U0 l2 w- B5 \
yauhooi2010 wrote:
5 a6 y% U7 r' Q& w: C9 C; EOct 8th 2010 3:11 GMT
: u! E* z. [3 L/ h0 b2 O" g/ r( o/ d; k. _3 I' b5 ~
I preferred this article, dealing with the *same* subject, from the NY Times: http://nyti.ms/bwVQpR3 E% F9 m" B1 n- a
Recommend (11)( B! o/ p, ~' R) S6 i- `6 o# i
Permalink9 a% y+ f! L& V( G
Report abuse
6 s/ e* O) `. k: A% ?yauhooi2010 wrote:
# E) L( R. z6 X4 q# j# ROct 8th 2010 3:21 GMT6 D: T ]7 x& p( h) F5 m
* l: l u! j* i {+ I$ o% \, AFirstAdvisor: Yes, agreed. In fact, I read that article before reading the Economist one and it sets out the issues so much clearer.4 C- K: e1 l2 a6 t9 s }/ D
Recommend (13)# `1 r- E% @( f5 X6 [; Q9 `
Permalink
" {5 U5 f, A3 X( NReport abuse; Y/ i/ `$ L. `0 I- _4 x; K0 `( P
PainFree wrote:5 u/ h1 q2 w$ \- H; N( r9 p
Oct 8th 2010 3:43 GMT7 ~" `/ a3 Q! @$ z! C
5 q- {6 f4 w( O I
I totally agree with the author of this article. Science misconduct should be handled strictly by specially appointed committee just like here in the U.S. Any evidence of research/science misconduct should be reported to the committee to initiate a formal investigation. The whole process has to be done confidentially. Dr. Xiao initiated his studies in the U.S. with financial support from NIH. His surgical procedure has been proven effective in at least some patients. A multicenter clinical trial is currently being carried out to further evaluate the efficacy and potential risks of the procedure. If Dr. Xiao is suspected of plagiarism or any other forms of research misconduct, then a proper route is to report to NIH because NIH has sponsored Dr. Xie's research and is still supporting research related to his procedure.5 r4 Z; A; R8 p! {* ^
Recommend (21)
( P+ j( D, A; ^- Y! z! z! v- iPermalink7 q! c- v6 N% H: o( V$ Y) P% d
Report abuse z0 z3 c2 H3 R3 s
PainFree wrote:1 c6 N# g* o3 C3 o
Oct 8th 2010 4:06 GMT
# A% j$ ]7 b% u$ V; }$ K/ G( W% H' i& g; \; a7 h- d% E
XYS group: To say that "Beaumont hospital who conducted the pilot study in the US provided false information in order to lure patients to their clinic trials." is a serious accusation against the PI and the hospital.
0 j0 Q( d. y( v/ G* n# t$ qRecommend (16)$ K& L9 ]8 n$ C. Z
Permalink6 C. Z, Z9 T5 i e" q3 b
Report abuse
v4 q5 k( C, I! Nxysgroup wrote:
, ^# M# C h4 _" u) v. q8 |& g! C7 }2 gOct 8th 2010 5:00 GMT! E1 J/ E+ d; V
6 P) H6 F( ~9 H A" g9 O! x
To PainFree:6 I% R; D# k2 x5 ]
/ I, v7 t4 T% `+ e6 K/ w
It is really a serious accusation, with evidence:2 f* _5 l5 h1 k, q3 k: y0 _- v
http://webcache.googleuserconten ... sld4U63UJ:spinab...
, Z$ q, ?% A6 s- Hhttp://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/sho ... 21&postcount=44" }: ^# w, n4 d7 n- m6 R
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6743851747&topic=6088
' t2 F, f0 R9 Z" B- [http://ronandmelissa.com/wp/?p=52$ y! }/ P- D. Y# `7 t0 q
" ~3 x# c/ }1 ^3 m5 W
We have reported it to the Human Investigation Committee of the hospital, but received no response. Then, what do you expect us to do?
, c# i# _% o" V9 k' N0 Q! B( [& N- K7 A+ n2 N
We also laid a serious accusation against Dr. Xiao that he fabricated his official document testifying the "85% success rate" of his procedure:
% ]2 a1 b4 k) S) L8 Jhttp://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html#l4
8 h' t9 @3 B3 N% F% ^7 n& ~But the Office of Research Integrity of China has never initiate a single investigation since it came into existence in Jan. 2007. And it is beyond the jurisdiction of the ORI of the US. Again, what do you expect us to do?
2 C0 U8 a" T9 h8 C% h5 pRecommend (11)/ {+ c1 c2 v- Q
Permalink3 A0 g( _9 Y- b- c$ d$ v1 m+ l/ z
Report abuse
: `# ?) Y$ u/ m$ q5 E8 x) R6 Fconvection wrote:; B0 F0 [0 q0 C5 g$ P2 [2 Y
Oct 8th 2010 5:06 GMT+ V3 K: A( _9 a$ U, B
( [- R& |0 |4 |7 r' DPainfree: I presume you don't know the fact that a official,specially appointed organization to investigate the accusation is just what has been wished by Fang and his supporters. Why there is no such investigation to be run by a public organization is,maybe, too complicated to explain to you if you don't understand the situation in china. But, pls believe this is also why Fang and his friedns are really heroes ,though they don't want to be and shouldn't be asked to do such sacrific just for revealing the truth. Repeated, that is why the author should be blamed for. To publish this article, he should know what you mayby don't know.4 k0 O* V% r$ l& N
Recommend (10)
Y8 Q7 y3 a1 o; z1 cPermalink
`9 \- D& a1 g- ]6 JReport abuse
7 g! j# Z* P; C, K/ pPainFree wrote:
9 J# q% ^; Q5 O- @, _) gOct 8th 2010 5:31 GMT6 m5 y( H0 d9 C% ~+ v
/ a% q% |3 _- i; ^XYS Group: Thanks for posting the links regarding your accusation against Beaumont Hospital. From the letter itself, it does not tell us at all that Beaumont Hospital intentionally lied about the this study and tried to "lure" patients to this clinical trial. As a matter of fact, this is a standard letter from a PI who explained in detail about this surgery including the benefit, potential risks, and the cost. And yes, he did say this procedure is being carried out in a large scale in China-but he was not lying. Over 500 cases a year is a large number-and most importantly this statement made by the doctor was based on his best understanding and interpretation. If he wanted to lie, he did not have to mention the risks, right?
( y7 N. Y" _ s4 DRecommend (12)
. a. E" Y" g. n8 S+ bPermalink- g7 Q8 k9 j1 |1 ?& I; q, `0 {
Report abuse/ z C4 U- ~3 M3 K5 H* x
PainFree wrote:; J: M; W! m9 J! U
Oct 8th 2010 5:45 GMT4 X! t$ v6 G! \! M7 [0 O- [: k
" x" l: F; y; c: ^" @$ k# E$ DI just read the open letters in support of Dr. Xiao and showing confidence in the surgical procedures from 34 distinguished clinical doctors, Ph.Ds. scientists, Chairs, and directors from programs like Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford. Should I question about their credibility? I know the letter is real because I happen to know one of those 34 people on the letter. I have no problem with XYS or Dr. Fang himself. My question is while the clinical trial is going on, and everyone agree that this procedure shows some promsing results, why cannot let them finish this peer-reviewed studies. This procedure has backup from preclinical studies and have been reviwed by experts from both China and USA for funding supports. I am sure there are merits in the procedure and the studies otherwise it would not get funded in the first place.# w& [; d) \4 j" c$ B( [. Y8 _
Recommend (13)+ e# n( N( O9 }9 E! S
Permalink, I( q0 E M3 B3 G( q; x
Report abuse
* a m! D2 m$ Z$ y, `- Xsunny_hui wrote:
! l9 [) G! ?' g" TOct 8th 2010 6:05 GMT% X3 r. e; }$ s- E
- R3 k& ]8 _( ^$ f
some disappointed..... |
|