Dr. Evan Kass's comments on Xiao Chuanguo's arrest at Science website
The following are the copies of Dr. Kass's comments, along with responses from Dr. Fang and New Threads Volunteers. The original post can be found at:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html
Evan Kass MD Chief of Pediatric Urology Beaumont Children's Hospital
I have known Dr Xiao for years and in my opinion, he is a good man, a caring physician, gifted surgeon, and an honest investigator. The scientific basis for his surgical procedure was initially developed in the animal laboratory and the results published in peer reviewed journals. Only after years of research was it applied to humans. We have been involved in a prospective study to evaluate this procedure and have constructed a valid research protocol for this project. Dr Xiao, has been involved with the deveopment of the research protocol and has cooperated fully with us and understands that the results of this study will be published. He has not tried to hide any of his research results or any other information. He is considered by the physicians and scientists in the United States as a respected colleague. Mr Fang, on the other hand, is an individual who is reported to have published research that was not his, and was reportedly called on it by Dr Xiao. He has conducted himself as a man seeking revenge at all costs and has tried to discredit Dr Xiao at every turn. One has to wonder if these claims of assault are real or imaginary. It makes no sense for a man of Dr Xiao's stature to hire some fools to punch Mr Fang and then return to China sometime later to be arrested. If he had hired someone for this task, wouldn't he have known that they were arrested prior to his return to China from Argentina and avoided arrest?? Dr Xiao is a brilliant man, and this reported assault attempt seems to be the work of a fool, not Dr Xiao.
Saturday, September 25, 2010, 10:43:49 AM
Shi-min Fang
Dr. Kass, you spread the rumor that I "have published research that was not" mine. Please show me where this publication is. You also spread the rumor that I am "a man seeking revenge at all costs". Please also show me the evidence to support your accusation. It's Dr. Xiao that had repeatedly stated he would "seek revenge at all costs" against me. Since I questioned Dr. Xiao's achievement in 2005, Dr. Xiao had posted numerous blogs to slander me, sued me five times, hired three persons to follow and threaten me once. After Fang Xuanchang and several Chinese journalists published their investigation results last year, showing the successful rate of "Xiao Procedure" is virtually zero, and dozens of Xiao's victims took legal action against Xiao's hospital in Zhengzhou, Xiao announced that Fang Xuanchang, Peng Jian (the attorney representing Xiao's victims) and I were "three chief devils" and threaten to "use the most vicious method" against us. It isn't surprised at all that he finally hired three hit men to assault Fang Xuanchang and me.
Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:42:37 PM
New Threads Volunteers
Dear Dr. Kass:
Please do not spread here Dr. Xiao's lies that he told you and your Beaumont team.
You said:
"Mr Fang, on the other hand, is an individual who is reported to have published research that was not his, and was reportedly called on it by Dr Xiao."
Please give your reference to Dr. Fang's "published research that was not his". If you meant to Xiao's false plagiarism accusation to Science Magazine agaist Fang's popular science writing that introduces scientific advances (one of which published in Science), please read the response from Science, at the bottom portion of this post (note: Fang's writing is not a research paper nor a journalistic article):
http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/Net/zhaojijun2.txtYou said:
"He (Xiao) has not tried to hide any of his research results or any other information."
We would like to expose here one lie that was told by Xiao, and then you Beaumont Hospital propagated the lie to entice patients:
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html#l10Beaumont repeatedly provided false information that the procedure is "now standard of care" in China and is "done everyday in hospitals in China".
Another lie, how an official document testifying the "85% success rate" was fabricated:
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html#l4Now, please allow us ask you one question:
As a member of Beaumont team who have conducted the priliminary trial and obtained the NIH fund for the Xiao Procedure, anyone of your team has ever read this conference report that claims more than 85% success rate on which your trials are mainly based:
Xiao CG. A somatic-autonomic reflex pathway procedure for neurogenic bladder and bowel: results on 92 patients with SCI and 110 children with spina bifida. . In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Urology; Shanghai, July 2-4, Shanghai, China; 2005.
Hint: this important conference report is in fact non-existent in the literature.
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html#l8Saturday, September 25, 2010, 1:44:35 PM
You said:
"The scientific basis for his surgical procedure was initially developed in the animal laboratory and the results published in peer reviewed journals. Only after years of research was it applied to humans."
Read the sequence below, please:
1994. Rats
Xiao CG, Godec CJ. A possible new reflex pathway for micturition after spinal cord injury. Paraplegia. 1994 May;32(5):300-7.
In order to restore bladder function after spinal cord injury, a controllable new reflex pathway has been established in rats.
1995. Trials on humans started
RealHealthNews: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/realhealthnews/interviews/mar05_chinese%20neurologist.php
in 1995, in very restricted conditions, Xiao began operations on paraplegic miners at the Pingding Mountain Mine
1998. Results on humans published
Xiao CG, Godec CJ, Du MX, et al. A new procedure to restore bladder functions after spinal cord injury: Preliminary report on 14 patients. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY 159 (5): 304 Suppl. S MAY 1998
1999. Cats
Xiao CG, de Groat WC, Godec CJ, Dai C, Xiao Q. "Skin-CNS-bladder" reflex pathway for micturition after spinal cord injury and its underlying mechanisms. J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):936-42.
A "skin-CNS-bladder" reflex pathway for inducing micturition after spinal cord injury has been established in cat.
Humans trials started only one year after rats result published and FOUR YEARS BEFORE CATS!
Saturday, September 25, 2010, 2:59:48 PM
You said:
"He (Dr. Fang) has conducted himself as a man seeking revenge at all costs and has tried to discredit Dr Xiao at every turn."
Did you mean the explicit life threat like this? "I would not hesitate to avenge Fan Zhouzi in the most treacherous way." (In Chinese: 我也会不惜用最歹毒的方式报仇, source: http://www.starlakeporch.net/bbs/read.php?1,56338,56419#msg-56419)
This was said by Xiao in his internet post, shortly after Chinese reporters and pro-bono lawyers discovered his procedure to be not only ineffective but also causing numerous permanent disabilities.
More over, have you ever heard of that Dr. Xiao's "life goals are welldoing, money and REVENGE"? This was declared in his talk in Tsinghua University.
Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:39:56 PM
Evan Kass MD Chief of Pediatric Urology Beaumont Children's Hospital
Unfortunately, there are those who would try to convict Dr Xiao without evidence or a fair judgement of the evidence by his peers. Jian Ping's comments are typical of those who would convict an innocent man without a fair and honest view of the evidence. Certainly, I defend Dr Xiao because he is, in my opinion, an honest hardworking scientist and surgeon. I have personally witnessed Dr Xiao doing his surgery and must say that he is an exceptionally gifted surgeon who would be successful in any country in the world. He did not need to falsify data to justify his procedure and I can tell you honestly that his procedure has worked wonderfully in some of our patients. Does it work for every child with spina bifida? Certainly not. Can we sub-select patients who would do better than others? Absolutely. That is the purpose of our study, and those that would criticize our methodology or the fact that Dr Xiao's procedure has some validity have to do more than simply bark at the moon. Our study at Beaumont has passed through multiple reviews both internally and externally before we were able to enroll patients, and anyone who tries to criticize our methodology, obviously is not objective and one must certainly question their motivations. As to the charge of assault, it is obvious that I, nor anyone on this blog knows the truth, but if you follow the career of Mr Fang, one should be very suspicious of any charges that Mr fang makes, because he is a man possessed by the need for revenge. If one chooses the side of a man who has been charged with plagerism, lost his counterclaim in court and has spent the last several years trying to destroy the career of the man he suspects of reporting him for falsifying data, then one certainly has to question that persons judgement. I choose to defend an honorable man that I know is a gifted surgeon, hard working scientist and a gentle kind soul. Could he have been pushed to his limit by a man who has harassed him at every turn and has tried to ruin his good reputation? Perhaps. Anyone can be pushed beyond the point of no return if they are constantly bombarded with false accusations, but, in my opinion, I do not think Dr Xiao is capable of such an action. Dr Xiao, despite all of the attempts of Mr Fang to discredit him continues to be a well respected person throughout the world and is not a desperate man. Most of us in the scientific community have read the ravings of Mr Fang and dismissed them as the words of a man hell bent on revenge. We would not be surprised if he engineered this whole event.
Saturday, September 25, 2010, 9:40:44 PM
New Threads Volunteers
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.
Monday, September 27, 2010, 4:06:01 AM
Evan Kass
Please do not misunderstand my position. I have no information about whether or not Dr Fang committed plagerism and therefore I dd not accuse him of such an act and I do not now I was merely reporting the information that I heard from Dr Xiao because it is my understanding that the difficulties between Dr Fang and Dr Xiao was a result of this charge by Dr Xiao, and a major reason for the ongoing feud between these two men. In my opinion, when feelings of revenge, whether justified or not justified, come to motivate behavior, one can not expect that individual to be an objecive critic. It seems to me that the feud between these two men has continued long after a simple resolution of the situation was possible and now we have reached the point of no return in this feud. This battle seems to be one that no one will win, and there will be no good that results.
At this point, I will continue to support the work of Dr Xiao against the slanted criticism that has been reported about his research and the study at Beauumont. Obviously, I support Dr Xiao both from a personal point of view, because he is a friend, and from a professional point of view because there is good evidence to support his research. Certainly, we can continue to argue back and forth, for no benefit because you have your opinion, and I, mine. My big concern is that this charge of assault seems to be thoroughly mixed with an attempt to discredit Dr Xaio's research, and that seems a bit strange to me. It would seem that if the charge is true, that friends of Dr Fang should be outraged about such an attack, and not devote so much time and energy to crticizing Dr Xaio's research or reputation, let alone the reputation of Beaumont hospital. I just hope in all this confusion that Dr Xaio will receive a fair hearing based upon the facts of the case and that the criticism of his research wait until another day because ultimately the truth will be known. That is the reason for us to do the research, and every honest researcher knows that you need to let the data speak for itself. If our study fails to support the work of Dr Xiao, then we will honestly report that result.
Monday, September 27, 2010, 9:59:49 AM
New Threads Volunteers
Dr. Kass,
Thank you so much to clarify that the rumor against Dr. Fang that you spread here twice was completely from Dr. Xiao instead of from your own information or judgement. What we want you to know is that the rumor you heard from Dr. Xiao is more ignoble than what he had been repeatedly spreading over Chinese internet forums, where he said that Science magazine has confirmed that Dr. Fang plagiarized a research paper in his popular science essay. Instead, what you heard was that Dr. Fang "published research that was not his" and "falsifying data".
Your comments here, including the above-mentioned rumor, have been translated into Chinese and posted on Chinese forums by Dr. Xiao's supporters as the evidence to further attack Dr. Fang. Therefore, we strongly suggest you, a responsible person, should contact Jeffrey Mervis, deputy news editor of Science who was in charge of the investigation of Dr. Xiao's plagiarism accusation, and then make further clarification.
In addition, we would like you know that "the difficulties between Dr Fang and Dr Xiao" can be traced back much earlier than the false plagiarism accusation. Earlier than that, Dr. Xiao had been frequently criticized by Dr. Fang for Xiao's supports to the questionable persons or scientific practices exposed by Dr. Fang, such as the one reported by Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5532/1039
China: biochemist wages online war against ethical lapses. Science. Aug 10, 2001: 293, 1039.
By the way, would you please also clarify the lie regarding the widespread acceptance of Xiao's procedure in China? It is totally different from what Dr. Xiao once told Chinese media that his team is the only one who performs the procedure in his affiliated hospitals only.
Besides, we would also like you to show us the most important conference report where the 85% success rate originates. Your Beaumont team cite the 85% success rate of 92 SCI and 110 SB patients in your NIH project information, so that we assume you have already read the report, even though we could not find it out in both Chinese and English literature. We are eager to see this report after several years of searching with no result.
Finally, please allow us to cite a piece of your previous post: "one certainly has to question that persons judgement", if the persons really base their research on those lies and rumors.
Monday, September 27, 2010, 3:25:25 PM
Dr Kass
I was shocked when I herd that my friend and, a man that I hold in high regard, was charged with a crime against Dr Fang I do not believe that he is capable of such a deed and I am very concerned that the feud between Dr Fang and Dr Xiao, which has persisted over the years, has brought us to where we are today. Certainly there is great difference of opinion between the supporters of Dr Fang and those of Dr Xiao. It is disturbing that most of the posts on this web site by Dr Fangs supporters continue to attack Dr Xiao's character and research, when most of the scientific community, outside of China, holds him in high regard. The fact that Dr Xiao allowed independent researchers outside of China to evaluate his procedure, puts him at risk for proving the procedure to be of little value. In my opinion, this is how an honest man behaves. It is also wrong of some critics of Dr Xiao to publish criticisms of his work on spina bifida web sites where innocent people, who are not involved in this feud can be hurt. I notice that Dr Fang has not entered into the dispute and for that he must be commended, since the evidence is already out there and the value of Dr Xiao's procedure will either be proven to have value or not. At this point, continued criticism of his work seems pointless and hateful.
We will continue to support Dr Xaio, hope that he is treated fairly, and given access to appropriate legal counsel.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 8:57:11 AM