My friend: Since you have demonstrated professionalism, let us have a conversation.

I don’t care that much about Mr. Xiao’s claim and all the fanfare. That is not my field and I have just too much business my own. But, if you want to have a discussion on a topic in science, try to be scientific if you are a pro. I believe we may agree on this rule. I don’t know what you do, but if you are in the business of medical science, you must have knowledge about the established procedure for the evaluation of people’s claim about the success (or failure) of certain design, and the related requirements. And what is the topic here? To my understanding it is: if Xiao’s procedure makes any sense at all. It is still too early to make conclusion for certain, but there seems to be at least sign for success of some kind, as the report you cited shows, the rate of improvement in spina bifida patients is really considerable, even though in that small population, the effect on the spinal injury patients is not evident. And what should be the response of medical professional to such a piece of data? I think we should at least take notes instead of spiting venom on it, just that simple.

Why? Because if the procedure really works, it would be hope for many who are now living in a totally hopeless situation, even if it works only for spina bifida. To save every single patient with “spinal injury” is too big a dream, because “spinal injury” is not a homogenous thing. You may find 100 different scenarios in 100 patients and you want something to work for every one of them? In comparison, spina bifida is much simpler by pathological nature. But it does not make it much less miserable or easier to manage, as far as the control of urination is concerned. Something that helps 7 out of nine of patients of this kind is a really great clinical achievement, no one could deny this. If someone works out a design of this kind, it means he has accomplished something that only very few people could match. He has something to boast about, although a boasting guy is not something that we love to see or team up with. Love the inventor or not, you have to love the achievement if you want to help the patients, it is just that simple. Then what kind of attitude we should assume toward this invention? I think it is appropriate to say we should encourage it to move forward instead of trying to kill it by calling the inventor a liar even if in a small sample pool the result is not very encouraging in cases with more complexity. As I mentioned above, the medical world has a procedure for the evaluation of therapeutic procedure. If you are not in position to make evaluation, just wait and see, and this is what I see as professionalism. Are you in the position to make evaluation about Xiao’s procedure? You tell me. But if you are a pro you need to know it is absurd to draw a definite conclusion from such a small pool of patients in this stage of clinical trail, and this is common knowledge, if you know anything about what spinal injury means. I know nothing about your background but if you are writing comments about this topic, you are trying to do a pro thing and, for a pro, I don’t think it is too much if I try to remind you what your burden is. I would not try to talk to the angry defenders of “human right and dignity” downstairs because it really makes no sense to talk to peoples of that kind. But if you want to behave as a pro, may a fellow comrade remind you that promote hate is not your duty at all.