Dr. Kass,

We are surprised that you, an educated person, could repeatedly accuse Dr. Fang of plagiarism, ignoring our clarification and Dr. Fang's own request for evidence from you to support your accusation.

We are surprised that you, an educated person, could publicly accuse Dr. Fang of conspiracy, purely out of your imagination. Your accusation is also an insult to Chinese police forces, who solved this high profile major criminal case under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Security of China for its cruelty and flagrancy, by dispatching hundreds of police across several provinces.

You said Dr. Xiao "did not need to falsify data", ignoring our solid evidence that he fabricated his official document for the "85% success rate".

You said "anyone who tries to criticize our methodology, obviously is not objective and one must certainly question their motivations", but how do you explain the serious critics from your peers in their editorial comments on your published results? ( see http://xysblogs.org/xysergroup/archives/8025 )

You said the "study at Beaumont has passed through multiple reviews both internally and externally", but what did you Beaumont team provide to the reviewers? the lie that the procedure is "now standard of care" in China? or the 85% success rate of 92 SCI and 110 SB patients that come from a non-existent conference report? or the misleading statement regarding your one-year results ("7/9 subjects are voiding either voluntarily or by stimulating the new reflex mechanism" without mentioning the 3 failed SCI patients, see your NIH project information)? Without those false or misleading information, how could Beaumont start the preliminary trial? and how could Beaumont now obtain the NIH grant, considering the same officially published one-year results were seriously questioned by peer experts?

You said "his procedure has worked wonderfully in some of our patients", but why did you Beaumont try to redefine the "success" ( in your paper, "a difficult aspect of this study is how success should be defined ...") several years after Beaumont started the trial? Unfortunately, the peer experts who made the comments on your results simply did not buy it.

Nevertheless, we can thoroughly understand the position that you Beaumont team take: you Beaumont and Dr. Xiao are in the same interest group, and you Beaumont's reputation would be seriously damaged once Dr. Xiao is convicted, and, without him, your Phase 2 trial might not be able to continue (definitely good news for innocent patients).

But, please note that, it is not the fault of Dr. Fang and his supporters. It is the fault of you Beaumont team who were fooled by Dr. Xiao. It is the fault of Dr. Xiao who was fool enough to wield hammers instead of "sound argument and data" (see Editorial Comments) after his fraud was exposed and his procedure was proved to be ineffective and causing disabilities, and his for-profit hospital was shut down.

Message awaits moderator approval
Today, 4:06:00 AM