An Open Letter of Complaint against the Xiao Procedure
By xysergroup | 2月 25, 2010
February 25, 2010
We are a group of volunteers who are alarmed by the ongoing public misrepresentation and misinformation on an experimental surgical procedure invented by Xiao Chuanguo, M.D., from China. The procedure, sometimes referred to as “Xiao Procedure”, is designed to treat neurogenic bladder due to spina bifida or spinal cord injury and has been undergoing clinical trials in China, United States, and a few other countries.
We initially learned about this procedure when Dr. Xiao was exposed for committing several academic misconducts on the New Threads (www.xys.org), a website that is committed to fighting against China’s academic corruption, plagiarism, and fraud. In the last five years, we have been closely following the case and have become seriously concerned about the effectiveness of the Xiao procedure and the risks associated with it. Indeed, the problems of the procedure have recently drawn the attention of Chinese media, and extremely shocking findings have been published after investigations.
In this Letter, we summarize a few facts about the procedure below. We hope to bring them to the attention of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who funds the trials, and the institutional review boards (IRBs) of the hospitals where the trials are currently undergoing, and any current or potential patients of the trials.
1. In China, an independent investigation by pro-bono lawyers has so far not been able to identify or confirm a single successful case of the Xiao Procedure. Instead, the investigation has discovered numerous cases of severe side effects. The lawyers collected a list of 110 patients who had undergone the procedure at Shenyuan Hospital in Zhengzhou, China, between September, 2006, and March, 2007, and interviewed 74 of them by telephone. They found that 73% of the patients reported that the procedure had produced no effect and 39% of the patients experienced various degrees of complications after surgery, including weakness, atrophy, deformity and lameness in lower limbs. Before the investigation, some of the patients who received the treatment together had already gotten in touch among themselves, and realized that there was no successful case among them.
2. Two victims of the Xiao Procedure have recently filed lawsuits against Shenyuan Hospital. We expect that more patients will follow. The patients claimed that they were misled by the widely advertised “85% success rate” of the procedure. Shortly before the litigation started, Shenyuan Hospital, a local, private and for-profit entity, of which Dr. Xiao owns 30% of the shares himself, was dissolved under Dr. Xiao’s order.
3. Dr. Xiao’s most famous case has since turned out to be all a hype. A boy by the nickname Little Shanshan was the very first patient treated by Dr. Xiao at Shenyuan Hospital. His “cure” was widely hailed in Chinese media and frequently cited by Shenyuan Hospital and Dr. Xiao himself as the proof of the success, inspiring hundreds of patients for the procedure. When investigators finally reached Little Shanshan, they found that he had never gained the ability of voluntary voiding but developed a limping gait. His mother revealed that Shenyuan doctors used to have him drink a lot of water and apply electric stimulus to help him urinate during demonstrations.
4. An official document testifying the “85% success rate” was discovered to be a fraud. On February 28, 2007, Shenyuan Hospital issued a certificate of cure rate when Dr. Xiao Chuanguo was applying to become a member of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). It claimed that the hospital had applied the procedure to 117 patients since January 2006, “sixty cases were followed up for more than 8 months, 85% of the patients have recovered normal bladder and bowel functions.” However, the hospital itself did not come into existence until August 2006 and only conducted its first operation on Little Shanshan on August 13 of that year. There was simply not enough time for it to have conducted a “more than 8 month” follow-up study.
5. The official appraisal of the Xiao Procedure in China was just a formality. A few members of an expert panel that evaluated the Xiao Procedure have since spoken out that they practically rubber-stamped their appraisal based on partial information selectively presented to them including the name-recognition of Dr. Xiao’s advisor, Dr. Xiao’s self-claimed fame abroad, and Dr. Xiao’s self-claimed success rate. The panel determined the procedure to be “world advanced,” which was frequently advertised by Shenyuan Hospital. On the other hand, another critical opinion from the panel has never been disclosed to the public: “(the procedure) carries very high risks.”
6. The fundamentals of the Xiao Procedure is still in doubt. Top experts in China have expressed their concerns over the lack of scientific basis of the procedure and the unethical practices without adequate and proper clinical trials. One of the experts examined the urodynamic diagrams presented in Dr. Xiao’s publications and found that the urination of some patients was actually due to the benefits from the intra-abdominal pressure instead of the detrusor pressure, suggesting the failure of recovery of neurological function of the bladder after surgery. The experts also suspect that the improvement of voiding functions in some patients might be the effects of conventional surgeries conducted simultaneously or subsequently, such as detethering, selective sacral rhizotomy, or electric stimulus, rather than that of the Xiao Procedure itself. For example, the girl who was reported by Dr. Xiao at SIU 2009 “gained complete bladder control in 5 months” after surgery, reportedly had very severe scar tissue in her gunshot wound, which is exactly the indication of detethering. Unfortunately, there is so far no controlled study, either by Dr. Xiao or a third-party, after the procedure has long been implemented by Dr. Xiao in his associated hospitals, for a fee of 30,000 RMB (4,400 USD) per patient.
7. Dr. Xiao has long been untruthful about or exaggerating his works. In one instance, he lied about winning the America Urological Association (AUA) Achievement Award in his resume. He also claimed his work was well recognized internationally, despite the fact that his publications were seldomly cited by his peers. After such facts had been exposed on the New Threads, he filed about 10 lawsuits for libel against Dr. Fang Zhouzi, the owner of the website. Dr. Xiao also has a spotty personal record. For example, his employment at a research institute was once terminated prematurely, leading to a legal dispute in a U. S. Court of Appeals, which he lost. Another case in a civil court that involved a warden suggested that Dr. Xiao was once put in jail. He lost that case as well.
8. The current clinical trials in the United States are based on dubious data. The key data that these trials are based appears to be from a conference report by Dr. Xiao, which was cited by a review article by Dr. Xiao published in European Urology. However, this important conference report is in fact non-existent in the literature. Nevertheless, the review article became the major reference of the U.S. trials. Comparing to the information from other sources, the success rate and the number of patients cited in Dr. Xiao’s article are very suspicious. Moreover, in a press release, William Beaumont Hospitals, who started the clinical trial in the U.S. in December, 2006 (Identifier: NCT00378664) and obtained a grant from the NIH in December 2009 (Project Number: 1R01DK084034-01), reiterated Dr. Xiao’s claim of “almost 90-percent success rate,” indicating that the trial at Beaumont was solely based on Dr. Xiao’s own assertion without any qualification. Furthermore, doctors at the All Children’s Hospital (ACH) mislabeled its trial as “double-blind”, indicating that either they lacked the understanding of the basic principle of clinical trials, or they (or Dr. Xiao himself) had no knowledge about the indications of the Xiao Procedure and the special pre-, intra- and postoperative care of the patients who receive the procedure, at least until the trial began in March 2009.
9. The outcomes of clinical trials outside China were not “promising” as claimed by Beaumont Hospitals. Firstly, the NIH sponsored multi-million-dollar trial (Grant Number: 5R01DK053063) on spinal cord injury (SCI) conducted by New York University (NYU) from 1999 to 2006 has so far produced no official result, except for a conference abstract that reported two cases with results that are much worse than Dr. Xiao’s (mean PVR=200 cc in NYU’s report vs. 31 cc in Dr. Xiao’s first 15 SCI patients, for example). Secondly, the information presented in Beaumont’s one-year report on spina bifida (SB) cases were selective and rather vague. There was no mention of the SCI cases, although the purpose of the trial was initially for both SCI and SB (see ClinicalTrials.gov registry), and its first procedure was for SCI, which “garnered national attention and appeared in more than 160 news outlets” (see Beaumont’s website). There was no pre- and post-operative comparison, which should be essential for a clinical report. The mean and standard deviation of postoperative urodynamic data were much worse than what Dr. Xiao had reported (mean PVR=119 cc in Beaumont’s report vs. 23.67 cc in Dr. Xiao’s first 20 SB patients, for example), which should invalidate his claims to some extent. The side effects were also understated. Thirdly, according to Dr. Xiao’s presentation at SIU 2009, all of the 6 SCI cases in Germany had failed (”only 2 showed some improvement”). Meanwhile, according to the media, all 3 patients with SCI at Beaumont were also “not helped by the procedure”. Statistically, the failure of all third-party SCI cases may proclaim the failure of the principle of the Xiao Procedure, especially considering that the “success” of Dr. Xiao’s very first human trials and animal studies were all of SCI. The recent NIH-funded trial was entitled “Safety and Efficacy of Nerve Rerouting for Treating Neurogenic Bladder in Spina Bifida” without mentioning SCI, which may speak for itself. Finally, Dr. Xiao blamed the failure of SCI cases to “incorrect patient selection” and “inappropriate postoperative care”. The former indicates, at least in part, the “success” of Beaumont’s SB patients was due to “extensive preoperative evaluation” (see Beaumont’s one year report); the latter contradicts the “success” of Beaumont’s SB patients who should have received the same postoperative care.
10. Beaumont Hospitals propagated the myth of the Xiao Procedure to patients. In response to patients’ inquiries, Beaumont repeatedly provided false information that the procedure is “now standard of care” in China and is “done everyday in hospitals in China”. The fact is that the procedure has never become standard of care in China. In the more recent years, the now-closed Shenyuan Hospital was the only institute that performed this surgery. Dr. Xiao’s team is so far the only one that performs it. Furthermore, Beaumont suggested patients going to China for the surgery, in spite of that the surgery is still under trial in the U.S. and the “results are too immature.” Beaumont’s indiscreet reference might have resulted in serious consequences: more than 90 U.S. patients had been “successfully treated” by the procedure, as announced by the website of Dr. Xiao’s Chinese Journal of Clinical Urology; and each foreign patient was charged about 20,000 USD, as disclosed online by a patient.
Based on the above facts, we wish to provide our following suggestions to the NIH, the IRBs of the related hospitals, as well as to patients and the media.
1. We appeal to the NIH and the IRBs to review their decision on clinical trials of the Xiao Procedure by independently and comprehensively re-investigating the 15 SCI and 20 SB cases published in the Journal of Urology 2003 and 2005, the unpublished 92 SCI and 110 SB cases cited in European Urology 2006, and the 1406 cases since 2006 at Shenyuan Hospital presented at SIU 2009, all by Dr. Xiao, along with the more than 90 U.S. cases treated by Dr. Xiao, the 2 cases at NYU, the 6 cases in Germany, as well as the 12 cases at Beaumont and the 8 cases at ACH. Dr. Xiao should have the obligation to present detailed original clinical data of his cases.
2. We appeal the related hospitals to suspend the trials immediately, pending the review. We suggest that the hospitals thoroughly examine the cases already conducted by themselves and Dr. Xiao. Considering that “in China rigorous follow up is challenging” (see Beaumont’s project description at the NIH website), we particularly urge Beaumont Hospitals to help Dr. Xiao conduct follow-ups of his 90 U.S. patients.
3. We caution the NIH and the related hospitals that the ongoing clinical trials in the United States have been distorted by Dr. Xiao in China as “the success of the NIH approved clinical implementation,” and “all surgeries completely succeeded, astonishing the international medical communities,” which may mislead more patients.
4. We advise patients to think twice when considering to participate in the clinical trials or to go for the treatment in China. We encourage patients who already received the procedure to come forward and report their status for the well-being of themselves and of others. Meanwhile, we suggest that the media should listen to patients as well, instead of relying solely on the stories put forward by Dr. Xiao and a few hospitals.
New Threads Volunteers
P.S.
We send this letter to the NIH and the IRBs or the overseeing authorities through postal mail by our representative. Meanwhile, we send the letter through email to the researchers and doctors that are involved or concerned, as well as the media who have reported related issues. We welcome for the letter to be posted on the internet, especially where the misleading or false information appears, so as to prevent patients from being misled or cheated when they eagerly search the web for a cure.
We do not disclose our identities to the public, in order to protect ourselves from retaliation from Dr. Xiao, who declared that his “life goals are welldoing, money and revenge” in his recent talk in Tsinghua University. Dr. Xiao has explicitly threatened some of us in various occasions before, and recently asserted in one of his internet posts that “I would not hesitate to avenge Fan Zhouzi in the most treacherous way”.
To provide background information, we enclose a list of reports from prestigious English media, for a better understanding of the activities of the New Threads and Dr. Fang Zhouzi. We also enclose the English translation of reports regarding the Xiao Procedure from Chinese media and lawyers.
This letter and the enclosed documents are publicly available at:
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html
For public and media inquiries, please send your emails to:
xysergroup @ gmail.com
or leave your comments on our blog at:
http://xysblogs.org/xysergroup/
The Chinese translation of this letter and the original Chinese reports can be found at:
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletterc.html
This letter was drafted by Eddie and Yush. The following New Threads volunteers participated in the translation and proofreading of the enclosed documents: blobfish, Eddie, fuzzify, gadfly, james_hussein_bond, lightman, PoohHunny2, Sanjiaomao, whoami and Yush. Numerous volunteers provided their comments and suggestions on the writing or the translation.
Topics: Xiao Chuanguo |
7 Responses to “An Open Letter of Complaint against the Xiao Procedure”
Comments
« 新语丝志愿者举报“肖氏术”的公开信 | Home| The Open Letter against the Xiao Procedure Sent to US Authorities »
2:16 pm on 3月 1st, 2010
I felt the letter is too long. Any citation of fact/evidence should be referenced. Legal cases against Dr. Xiao is not evidence of wrong doing. Personal character or behavior citation could interpretated as personal attack rather than a complaint based solely on academic merits.
After reading the letter, my feeling is the grudge against him is more personal than academic or ethical.
Thanks.
9:50 pm on 3月 1st, 2010
Thank you for your comment, GRECHA.
1. Most of the citation can be found in the enclosed supporting material, few others can be found by doing a simple internet search. If any fact/evidence could be found to be untrue or misleading, it would be the shame of our volunteers, who bear the name of New Threads.
2. No legal case “against Dr. Xiao” was cited in this letter. All cases are of “Dr. Xiao against” others. Even though some the legal cases mentioned in this letter might not be direct evidence of Dr. Xiao’s wrong doing, they mostly suggest so.
3. “Personal attack” by definition is to make an abusive remark instead of to provide evidence. We did not make any abusive remark and we provided evidence. We mentioned Dr. Xiao’s personal behaviors in only one of ten sections, which we believe it can explain how he could “succeed”: to succeed in China by lying about and exaggerating his work in the States, and later on to succeed in the States by lying about and exaggerating his work in China.
4. It is not a personal grudge, instead it is our indignation against the rampant academic corruptions in China, Dr. Xiao’s case being a perfect example.
5. If you want to know what “personal attacks” and “personal grudges” really mean, I suggest you going through the open letter by Dr. Xiao’s own, and, if you read Chinese, look at a part of Dr. Xiao’s internet posts collected two and half years ago. Sorry to readers not to read Chinese, we do not have enough vocabulary to be able to translate Dr. Xiao’s dirty words in his posts into English.
4:50 pm on 9月 5th, 2013
Lastly skin care and personal care products - this
is where society sneaks in the chemicals.
If you invest more than 800 dollars, you aren’t guaranteed an excellent cleaning, but it is worth it.
For example, people with a latex allergy often have related
food allergies.
3:45 pm on 8月 24th, 2014
If your hose is too short, or you want a longer power cable, you can probably get replacements, rather than having to buy a new cleaner.
Although the low price of many steam cleaners may seem enticing,
it is important to consider the quality of the machine.
A sternum clip also assists in giving you more support.
1:30 am on 9月 16th, 2015
I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your site?
Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images.
Maybe you could space it out better?
10:06 am on 9月 16th, 2015
are these solicitation for web design improvement?
7:55 pm on 3月 23rd, 2016
Heya just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few of the
pictures aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking
issue. I’ve tried it in two different web browsers and both show the same
outcome.
my web page :: divinewordint.org (Dewitt)