声称生命力能杀死癌细胞的 “奇迹医生”之文被撤

诸平

Xin Yan(严新）

据《撤稿瞭望》（Retraction Watch）网站2021年4月26日报道，中国的一位“奇迹医生（miracle doctor）”及其同事在2007年发表的一篇关于武术气功具有治疗癌症的能力的论文被撤，此前发表该研究的杂志称，当时未能对其进行适当地审查。

此论文题为——“严新气功诱导G2/M的外气逮捕和通过抑制Akt和NF-B途径雄激素非依赖性前列腺癌细胞凋亡，（External Qi of Yan Xin Qigong induces G2/M arrest and apoptosis of androgen-independent prostate cancer cells by inhibiting Akt and NF-B pathways）”，2007年12月在《分子和细胞生物化学》（Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry）杂志发表，该杂志是一种施普林格公司出版的杂志。根据Clarivate Analytics的Web of Science（Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science）统计结果，该文已被引用20次。

该研究的第一作者是严新（Yan Xin音译），其传记说他是一位“奇迹医生（miracle doctor）”，他是世界上研究气的治疗属性的专家之一，气是中国医学和哲学中普遍的生命力。他的合著者包括美国哈佛大学（Harvard University），加拿大麦克马斯特大学（McMaster University）以及美国市新医学科学研究所（New Medical Science Research Institute in New York City）的研究人员。

这篇论文是严新及其同事发表的至少七篇文章之一，在2019年就引起伊丽莎白·比克（Elisabeth Bik）的注意，伊丽莎白·比克对这一发现提出了疑问，正如BuzzFeed刊登的斯蒂芬妮·李（Stephanie Lee）报道的那样：

在伊丽莎白·比克看来，她的兔子洞研究揭示了本应确保科学透明的系统的严重缺陷。她在推特上写道： “同行评审和编辑对其没有做什么工作。”

此外，正如伊丽莎白·比克所指出的那样，一些研究承认美国国立卫生研究院（National Institutes of Health）的资助。根据该机构的网站，列出的数十种联邦赠款总计至少3100万美元。目前尚不清楚有多少钱实际用于外部气功实验，其中包括跨多个项目的大笔赠款。参与其中一项研究的研究人员迈克尔·森托拉（Michael Centola）表示，至少有一部分金额与该项目相关的其他费用。

在伊丽莎白·比克开始质疑严新等人的论文后大约23个月，这项新的撤消措施出现了，姗姗来迟的撤稿公告，既不算是陆地行驶速度的记录，也并非是最慢的慢火车速度。

另一方面，据《撤稿瞭望》所知，这是2011年发表在同一杂志上的七篇文章中唯一一篇被删除的。 根据撤稿通知（notice）： 

由于担心研究结果的科学有效性和可重复性，编辑者撤回了本文 ¹。发表后的同行评审得出的结论是，没有关于严新气功的外气是什么，它是如何产生的以及如何被他人复制的有关分子机制的信息，也没有合理的分子机制。

所有作者都不同意这种撤消。

该期刊的编辑没有立即回应《撤稿瞭望》的置评请求。可以肯定的是，《撤稿瞭望》是出版后同行评审的忠实粉丝。但《撤稿瞭望》发现这份通知并不真诚。毕竟，作者并没有试图在发表前的同行评议中隐藏他们的结论，而同行评议会从文章中读到类似的句子： 

长期的临床观察和正在进行的研究表明，严新气功（YXQG-EQ）的中医外气具有抗肿瘤作用。

这篇文章包含了一些参考文献，这些文献可以被检查是否有效。换句话说，在发表后的审查中出现的数据问题是一回事。但说要通过这样的评估才能发现一篇文章中隐藏的瑕疵，这有点像欲盖弥彰之嫌疑。更多信息请注意浏览相关报道。

Yan Xin

A “miracle doctor” in China and his colleagues have lost a 2007 paper on the ability of the martial art qigong to treat cancer after the journal that published the work said it failed to properly vet the findings.

Well, the first part of that is true. The second part is implied. We’ll explain. 

The paper, “External Qi of Yan Xin Qigong induces G2/M arrest and apoptosis of androgen-independent prostate cancer cells by inhibiting Akt and NF-B pathways,” appeared in December 2007 in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, a Springer Nature journal. It has been cited 20 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

The first author on the study was Yan Xin, whose biography states that he is a “miracle doctor” and one of the world’s experts in the healing properties of qi — the universal life force in traditional Chinese medicine and philosophy. His co-authors include researchers at Harvard, McMaster University in Canada, and the New Medical Science Research Institute in New York City.

The paper is one of at least seven articles by Yan and colleagues that caught the eye of Elisabeth Bik, who in 2019 raised questions about the findings, as Stephanie Lee of BuzzFeed reported:

In Bik’s view, her rabbit hole research revealed serious flaws in the system that is supposed to ensure science is transparent.

“Seven sets of peer-reviewers and editors who were not doing their jobs,” she tweeted.

In addition, as Bik noted, some of the studies acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health. The dozens of federal grants listed total at least $31 million, according to the agency’s website. It is unclear how much of the money, which included large grants that spanned multiple projects, actually funded the external Qi experiments. At least some amount went to other costs associated with the project, according to Michael Centola, a researcher involved with one of the studies.

The new retraction comes about 23 months after Bik began asking questions about Yan’s papers, which isn’t exactly a land speed record but is hardly the slowest of slow trains, either. On the other hand, to our knowledge it’s the only one of the seven articles — one of which appeared in the same journal in 2011 — to have been removed so far. 

According to the notice: 

The Editor has retracted this article [1] due to concerns about the scientific validity and reproducibility of the findings. Post-publication peer review has concluded that there is no information on or plausible molecular mechanism which explains what the External Qi of Yan Xin Qigong is, how it is produced, and how it could be reproduced by others.

All authors disagree with this retraction.

The editor of the journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

To be sure, we’re huge fans of post-publication peer review around here. But we find this notice disingenuous. After all, the authors made no efforts to hide their conclusions from the pre-publication peer reviews, who would have read sentences like this one from the article: 

Long-term clinical observations and ongoing studies have shown antitumor effects of external Qi of Yan Xin Qigong (YXQG-EQ) that originated from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

That passage included references, too — references that could have been checked for validity. 

In other words, it’s one thing to say that problems with data emerged during a post-publication review. But saying it took such an assessment to discover flaws in an article that were hiding in plain sight is a bit like the IRS saying its crack team of auditors found red flags in the taxes I successfully filed on a cocktail napkin.

医学教育网相关评议：

【讨论】气功大师严新发功可以影响癌基因，sci杂志的报道