實事求是是科學的基本精神。這四個字可以分成兩部分，實事，指通過觀察測量和實驗取得現象，數據或證據。求是，指用邏輯或數理方法對對所發現的客觀事實進行分析處理以揭示事物的本質或規律。這四個字不僅可以用來指導科學，同樣可以用來甄別騙子。現成的例子就有一個。
有一個帖子題為“同濟醫學院外科醫生常士民對肖傳國手術的明確質疑”。方舟子集團用來作為肖傳國造假的證據到處撒布。不小心被Nile看到了。作者在帖子裡說，外科醫生常士民和肖傳國都是同濟的醫生。常大夫根本不信肖的牛皮。並附有常醫生的全文，常士民醫生給編輯的一封信，發表在美國泌尿學雜誌上（J Urol. 2004 Jun;171:2387-8.）。nile就在“實事”的層面上，檢查一下常醫生這封信的具體內容，看看帖子的作者說的是不是事實。
首先要指出，根據信尾常士民醫生的落款，常和肖不在同一個醫院工作。常士民在上海同濟大學醫學院同濟醫院整形外科，肖傳國在武漢華中科技大學同濟醫學院附屬協和醫院泌尿外科。兩個人的醫院所在地，醫院名稱，工作專業都不同。常醫生原信的標題如下：
Re: an artificial somatic-central nervous system-autonomic reflex pathway for controllable micturition after spinal cord injury: preliminary results in 15 patients.
文章的第一段交代了文章的目的：基於我們的認識和治療經驗，我們要對人工“體—中樞神經—膀胱”反射通路作一個評論。第二段進入正文，開始談第一個問題。作者認為，人工反射的作用與脊髓損傷病人自然形成的反射作用有相似之處。第三段討論應該用哪根神經做供體哪根作受體。肖用左側腰5作供體，骶2和3作受體。常認為可以用腰5或骶1作供體，骶3或骶4作受體，效果會更好。第四段，討論手術如何促進副交感神經軸突再生而減少體運動神經的軸突再生，以更好地排空膀胱。第五段，討論用什麼方法作為傳入信號激發反射更好。如果用“肌腱—中樞神經—膀胱”反射，會不會比“皮膚—中樞神經—膀胱”反射更好？進一步討論指出“皮膚—中樞神經—膀胱”可以解決膀胱的排空，但是還沒有解決膀胱的順應性和存儲量，是否可以通過“去神經傳入（deafferentation）”來解決這個問題，deafferentation在這裡指干擾或去除膀胱的牽張感覺從骶髓后角根傳入骶髓。最後一段全文照貼如下。請大家作個閱讀理解，自己判斷一下常醫生是否認為肖傳國的“體—中樞神經—膀胱”反射弧手術是學術造假。
Finally, establishing an artificial “somatic-CNS-bladder” reflex arc to trigger voiding in patients with spinal cord injury is a new and promising approach. Congratulations to Xiao et al, who present interesting and inxxxxative research work. However, more experimental and clinical studies and long-term followup are needed before a definite conclusion is drawn.
根據本人對方舟子集團捏造事實手法的了解，基本可以斷定發出這個帖子的xyzt是方舟子集團的人。方舟子集團誣陷別人學術造假所使用的方法大概可以簡化如下：肖傳國是騙子，因為他說太陽是從西邊升起的。大家現在看到了吧，和他一個醫院工作的常醫生都不相信，常醫生認為太陽是東邊升起的。方舟子集團在這裡一口氣撒了三個謊。其實，肖傳國說的是太陽從東偏南N度升起，常醫生認為可以是東偏南N±5度。而且肖和常不在一個醫院工作。
很明顯，常醫生的評論是對肖氏手術的補充建議。按nile的理解，常醫生在評論中提出了三個建設性的意見。第一，常認為不經過肖氏手術建立人工反射弧，病人也可能自然產生替代的排尿反射。因此，手術一定要有非手術對照才能證明療效。第二，肖用腰5後根與骶2，3吻合，而常認為可以用腰5和骶1的後根與骶3，4吻合。第三，肖沒有切斷膀胱感覺神經的傳入枝而常認為可以試試。這樣學術評論到了方舟子們的手里就變成了常醫生懷疑肖傳國學術造假。方舟子要揭發肖氏手術是偽科學，就應該和常醫生一樣，把文章發給泌尿學雜誌，經過同行專家評議後發表。而不可以在自己的“新語絲”上想怎麼編就怎麼編，想怎麼罵就怎麼罵。
方舟子們的這種手法使Nile想起方舟子早年打擊基督教時理直氣壯批神創論。神創論的支持者們有一說就是很多生物專家們發表文章質疑進化論。事實上，沒有一個人在學術平台發表論文說進化論是偽科學，專業人員們討論的是在生物進化的具體機制。比如進化的速度是勻速的，加速的，減速的還是跳躍式的。不知道如今的方舟子把昔日對手的手法借為己用，有沒有事先得到人家的同意。不管是方舟子，還是其他的什麼騙子，nile相信，他們之所以敢於公然撒謊就是有很多人不了解事實也懶得去查證事實。 “實事求是”是科學的精神，而甄別騙子不要“求是”。取其前一半“實事”就夠了。Nile把方舟子們的帖子附在文後，有興趣的可以查證一下。
附件：
同濟醫學院外科醫生常士民對肖傳國手術的明確質疑
xyzt 貼於2005/09/21 07:43 （華中科技大學校友論壇）
baih 於 [教育與學術]
已經白紙黑字發表過
因為是都是同濟的醫生，常大夫在嚴重質疑肖傳國吹牛以後，客客氣氣地加了一句方法還要更多實踐驗證，其實常大夫根本不信肖的牛皮
RE: AN ARTIFICIAL SOMATIC-CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMAUTONOMIC REFLEX PATHWAY FOR CONTROLLABLE MICTURITION AFTER SPINAL CORD INJURY: PRELIMINARY RESULTS IN 15 PATIENTS
C. G. Xiao, M.-X. Du, C. Dai, B. Li, V. W. Nitti and
W. C. de Groat
J Urol, 170: 1237–1241, 2003
To the Editor. Reconstruction of controlled voiding in spinal cord injury still remains a major challenge in medicine. Xiao et al perxxxxed an interesting investigation first in animals (rat1 and cat2) and then in clinical patients, by establishing the “skin-central nervous system (CNS)-bladder” artificial reflex pathway to trigger bladder contraction. Based on our understanding and clinical experience in bladder treatment of patients with spinal cord injury, we would like to comment on some points regarding the artificial “somatic-CNS-bladder” reflex pathway.
First is the relationship between naturally triggered voiding and artificially triggered voiding. In patients with suprasacral spinal cord injury one or more nature triggering points usually develops to initiate voiding, for example tapping the lower abdomen, pulling the pubis or scratching the skin below the spinal cord injury level. Does the patient who underwent the operation still retain naturally triggered voiding? Furthermore, we do not think the artificial reflex arc can “control” voiding. It may have the same role of trigger point in spastic bladders of spinal cord injury.
In addition, which root should be selected as the recipient? For the donor root in clinic it can be L3, L4, L5 or S1. Considering spine stability, L5 or S1 is preferential. For the recipient root one must consider its normal innervative frequency and efficacy to bladder detrusors. Generally speaking, S2 roots in patients seldom have innervative contribution to bladder detrusor because there is no bladder pressure increase when S2 is stimulated (20 V, 30 Hz). S3 and S4 are the dominant contributors of bladder innervation, with the right side more efficacious.3 Furthermore, the proximal lumbar somatic motor ventral roots innervating the hindlimb muscle are much larger than the distal sacral ventral roots innervating the pelvic organ and floor. Therefore, it is technically possible to anastomose 1 proximal donor root with 2 or 3 distal recipient roots. So in our opinion the recipient root for neurorhaphy should be S3 or S4, bilaterally or unilaterally.
Another point centers on how to promote axonal regeneration to pelvic nerves rather than to pudendual nerves. As we know, the ventral root of L6 in rat, S1 in cat, S2 in dog or S3 in man contains somatic motor fibers as well as parasympathetic preganglionic fibers. The xxxxer xxxxs pudendal nerve to innervate pelvic striated muscles and sphincters, and the latter xxxxs pelvic nerve to pelvic ganglion and then innervate pelvic organs. Theoretically, the proximal somatic motor fibers are more inclined to regenerate into distal somatic nerves because they can release the same neural trophic and growth factors to attract and induce axonal sprouting and regenerating. However, the aim of this operation is to get more reinnervation to bladder and less reinnervat
簡體