肖传国申报院士肖氏术治愈率假证明谎难圆

15 04 2010年

身为前神源医院股东和郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心主任的肖传国,2007年申报中国科学院院士时,提供了一份落款 2007年2月28日的治愈率假证明[1],声称神源医院自2006年1月开始应用肖氏术治疗患者 117例,“术后随访8个月以上60例,85%的患者大小便已恢复正常”。实际上,根据媒体报道和郑州大学领导的讲话,神源医院直到2006年8月才成立,并于8月13日才对“著名病人”小善善实施了第一例手术,根本不可能“60例病人随访8个月以上”[2]。

假证明被方舟子揭露后,肖传国在论坛发贴[3]辱骂揭露他的中国新闻周刊记者蔡如鹏时,谎称“证明材料在4月底最后上报审核时我发现日期不对,已改过来了”。可惜无论“改”哪个日期都圆不了谎。这次接受南方周末采访[4],又谎称“神源医院实际成立时间早于8月,小善善也并非第一例,在小善善之前已经做过两三个病人”。可惜这谎言太低级,记者不买账。

肖传国告诉南方周末记者:“如果没有方舟子,我应该早就是院士了。”果真如此,则这是对方舟子学术打假业绩的最大的肯定。不过也难说。说不定科学院偶尔明察秋毫,早发现了这份证明是假的呢。

肖传国吹牛成瘾、谎话连篇,由提供假证明并一再圆谎之事可见一斑。令人惊讶的是,此人居然妄称“欢迎科技界同仁和全国媒体逐条核查方舟子在新语丝网站上发表的对我的所有指控,查到一条属实,奖金五万”。

可笑至极。

参考资料:

[1]肖传国2007年申报院士证明
原件照片见 http://xysblogs.org/wp-content /blogs/107/uploads/shenyuan.jpg
证明
郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心,自2006年1月开始应用肖传国教授发明的“人工体神经-内脏神经反射弧”技术,治疗脊柱裂、脊髓脊膜膨出所致的神经原性膀胱患者117例,术后随访8个月以上60例,85%的患者大小便已恢复正常。
特此证明
2007年2月28日
郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心

[2]方舟子《“肖氏反射弧手术”治愈率的假证明)(XYS20091029)

[3]肖传国网帖
这蔡如鹏倒是只在这点科学问题上菜了一下,但主要是德性
Posted by: CG
Date: November 11, 2009 09:25PM
有份卫生部的鉴定他想复印,当时又下班啦,就把装订成册的报院士原始材料初稿给他了,让他带走复印完寄来,这狗日的却拿去交给方叉,这不就挑到神源医院那应用证明的日期。我质问他,他发誓没有。可是他不知道这份证明材料在4月底最后上报审核时我发现日期不对,已改过来了。

[4]“有望获诺贝尔奖的手术”?
记者:柴会群
南方周末 2010-04-15

然而此证明却被方舟子的支持者指为造假,因为证明出具的时间是2007年2月,郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心(即神源医院)2006年8月才做第一例手术,不可能有随访8个月的病人。更不用说有60例。

肖传国对南方周末记者解释说,神源医院实际成立时间早于8月,小善善也并非第一例,在小善善之前已经做过两三个病人。但此说法仍无法解释证明中“60例病人随访8个月”的提法。



How Xiao Procedure Trials Started in U.S.

25 02 2010年

The clinical trials on the so called “Xiao Procedure” are currently undergoing in the U.S. [a, b], despite of the fact that the procedure has long been questioned in China and recently found by Chinese lawyers and reporters to be ineffective and risky. We thus raise the question: how could the clinical trials have started in the U.S.? We find the answer after thoroughly examining the information from different sources: Dr. Xiao Chuanguo provided false or dubious information regarding his procedure, and some hospitals in the U.S. accepted Dr. Xiao’s self-claim without discrimination.

Dr. Xiao published a review article [c] in the European Urology, in which he claims by citing his conference report [25]

By the end of 2004, a total of 92 SCI patients with hyper reflexic or acontractile bladder in our hospital have been treated with the somatic and autonomic reflex arc procedure and 81 of them regained bladder control one year postoperatively [25].

…Up to date, we have performed the procedure for bladder and bowel control safely on 110 children with spina bifida [25]. The rate of success at the one year follow-up is 87%, compared to the 85% for the first 20 cases reported.

…Occurrence rate of partial loss of the left L4 or L5 motor function after surgery, the only complication for 25% of the first 20 cases, has been dramatically reduced to 5% with only slighter and recoverable muscular weakness by using only half of the lumbar ventral root [25].

Dr. Xiao’s report [25] cited by the review [c] provides so far the best rate of success, the least rate of risk, and the largest number of patients among his publications. These data have logically become the major reference of the U.S. trials (see the ClinicalTrials.gov registry [a] and the project description at the NIH grant website [b]), and have been frequently cited by William Beaumont Hospitals in various occasions, such as its press release [d], the department description [e], and the one-year clinical report [f].

Unfortunately, these critical data are very suspicious.

A piece of material [g] dated on August 28, 2004 from the Propaganda Department of Dr. Xiao’s hospital reveals: “since 2000 … 62 patients with spina bifida have been treated in Xiehe Hospital,” including Dr. Xiao’s very first 20 patients that were followed up “over two years”. In contrast, the report [25] dated on July 2-4, 2005 gives a total of 110 children with spina bifida who had been followed up for one year with 87% success rate, excluding the first 20 patients.

Another piece of news of March 2006 [h] from Dr. Xiao’s university says: “up to date, 218 “artificial reflex arc” operations have been carried out in China; the rate of effectiveness is as high as 80%.” However, there are total 237 cases reviewed in the article [c] (92 SCI and 110 spina bifida in the report [25], and 15 SCI and 20 spina bifida cases in Xiao’s previous papers), and all these cases should have been followed up for one year by the end of 2004. By doing a simple math, we can find that there are 174 effective cases in the 2006 news [h], whereas there are total 206 successful cases in the 2005 review article [c] (81 + 110×87% in the report [25] and 15×80% + 20×85% in the previous papers).

Dr. Xiao’s institute has no reason to play down its professor’s achievement. The contradiction in the number of patients and success or effective rate can only be explained in such a way that the data in Dr. Xiao’s article were either exaggerated or fabricated.

In fact, even the data from Dr. Xiao himself are also inconsistent. In a TV program [i] on March 29, 2009, Dr. Xiao admitted “the success rate is nearly 80%”. Several months later in his presentation [j] at the SIU 2009 Congress, the rate dramatically increased to 86.2%. Moreover, in his presentation, he claimed that 506 cases were followed up for 12 months at Shenyuan Hospital, and presented the statistics of the urodynamic data of the 506 cases. Several days later, he said a slip of the tongue in his web post [k] that “only about 400 of the patients were followed up with urodynamic study”.

Finally, the conference report [25] does not exist in the literature. There indeed exists an International Conference of Urology in Shanghai on July 2-4, 2005, which was solely sponsored by the Chinese Journal of Clinical Urology, Dr. Xiao being the Editor-in-Chief; there indeed exists a proceeding of the conference in the literature database, but Xiao’s report disappeared.

Unfortunately, this is not the only case that Dr. Xiao manipulated clinical data.

On February 28, 2007, the Neuro-Urologic Surgery Research Center (a.k.a Shenyuan Hospital) at Zhengzhou University signed an official document [l] for Dr. Xiao, the Director of the Center, for his bid for the membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The Academician is the most honorable title for a scientist in China to pursue. In this supporting document, it was claimed that, starting from January 2006, the Center had applied the procedure to 117 patients, “Sixty cases were followed up for more than eight months. 85% of the patients have regained normal bladder and bowel functions.”

What was claimed in the supporting document is anything but truth. The Center did not come into existence until August 2006 and conducted its first operation on August 13. Ridiculously, less than 7 months later, the Center produced the document for its Director stating that they have conducted “more than 8 months” follow-ups on 60 patients. This ridiculous incident could not be the result of mistakenly dating the document, because the deadline for submitting application package was April 30, 2007 as required by the CAS.

In fact, Dr. Xiao has a long history of telling lies. Just to mention a few. He lied about winning the America Urological Association (AUA) Achievement Award in his resume [m]. The original copy of the resume disappeared from the internet after Dr. Fang Zhouzi exposed the fact along with Dr. Xiao’s other misconducts, but the claim of winning the award can still be found on the internet, such as at Ho Leung Ho Lee Foundation’s website [n]. Another example is that the expert panel who once evaluated the Xiao Procedure were told that the procedure was well recognized internationally. What they were not told was that Dr. Xiao’s publications were seldom cited by peers; and at the time, his work was not recognized even by his employer, who “discriminated against him … by terminating his employment as a research director; by forcing him to work in a laboratory that was used for the storage of paint, tiles, and windows”, as disclosed in a summary order from a U.S. Court of Appeals [o].

Now that Dr. Xiao dared to fabricate an official document for the most honorable academic title in China, lie about his award and his work, why could not he play the same trick in his paper for it to be published in a prestigious urology journal in Europe, and in turn to deceive the top institutions in the U.S.?

Dr. Xiao failed in his application for the Academician in China, three times in row every two years. His procedure was not recognized at all in China. Ironically, clinical trials of his procedure have started in the U.S..

The question is: could the top institutions in the U.S., such as the National Institutes of Health, Beaumont Hospitals and All Children’s Hospital, be so naive to be deceived and rashly start clinical trials based on suspicious data?

The answer is definitely YES.

“The procedure has not gained widespread acceptance outside of China,” Beaumont’s one year clinical report [f] implies the Xiao Procedure’s widespread acceptance “inside” of China. In at least three responses [p, q, r] to patients’ inquiries, Beaumont team said explicitly:

In China, this procedure is now standard of care. Dr. Xiao has taught this procedure to surgeon’s at all the major hospitals in China.
……
>> This surgery is now standard of care in China. Dr. Xiao has taught this procedure to surgeons all over China. It is done everyday in hospitals in China. If you really want to have this procedure done on your son, we would suggest going to China. … If you are at all interested in going to China, I would be happy to forward your information to Dr. Xiao. I have done this with other families.

Beaumont’s words regarding the acceptance of the procedure are absolutely not reflecting the truth, whose source apparently can be traced back to Dr. Xiao.

Xiao Procedure is not standard of care in China. Dr. Xiao has failed to teach this procedure to surgeons in China, as he admitted in an interview with China News Weekly, and his team is the only one who has the ability to perform this procedure. Moreover, no major hospital except a couple of affiliated hospitals of the university, where Dr. Xiao is the director of Urology Department, did it before mid-2006, and only one local private for-profit hospital, Shenyuan, where Dr. Xiao owns 30% of its shares, did it after August 2006.

The procedure has never been performed by surgeons in China other than Dr. Xiao’s team, let alone being widely accepted in China, either by critics, or by doctors and patients. It has been questioned by Dr. Fang and the readers of the New Threads since 2005. Dr. Fang hereby faced nearly 10 libel lawsuits filed by Dr. Xiao and lost one case in a local court in Dr. Xiao’s hometown, based on the following court findings, which became a joke teeming Chinese internet forums: “the defendant Fang could not find the plaintiff’s name on the list of award winners cannot deny the fact that the plaintiff won the award. Therefore, it is an established fact that the plaintiff has won the AUA Award.” Recently, some top experts, in defiance of Dr. Xiao’s potential legal action, finally expressed their concerns over the lack of scientific basis of the Xiao Procedure and unethical for-profit practice of this questionable procedure without adequate and proper clinical trials. Those experts include the one and only Academician in urologic surgery, directors from departments of urology in major hospitals, and even members of the expert panel who once evaluated this procedure. In addition, the procedure has long been infamous across Chinese internet forums where there are full of complaints from patients who received this procedure; no single success case can be found from patients’ posts. The only places where the procedure gets popular are the more than 50 (by the end of 2007) online advertising websites, where spamming posts from Shenyuan Hospital flood along with those of cures for cancer and diabetes.

Beaumont team took and further propagated the lie of so called widespread acceptance. What’s worse, they based their trial at least partially on this lie, citing the lie in their one year report as the evidence. What’s the worst, in at least two of their responses, they suggested the patients (and they “have done this with other families”) to go to China for the surgery, in spite of the fact that the surgery “much is still unknown” [b] to them and the “results are too immature to report yet” [q].

Because of the unknowns, “if a parent walked into my office and stuck $50,000 in my face, I’d have to say no.” Dr. Kenneth Peters, Chairman of Urology Department who leads the trial at Beaumont, once told St. Petersburg Times [s] before he would “emphasize caution” at the First World Conference on Spina Bifida Research, “Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I’m not ready to say that.”

But, what has Beaumont team actually already done with patients who are “desperate for help [s]” from them?

Thanks to Beaumont’s effort of spreading the lie, there were more than 90 U.S. patients that had been “successfully treated” by the procedure, as announced by the website of Dr. Xiao’s Chinese Journal of Clinical Urology, after Dr. Xiao was interviewed by CNN [t]. We have noticed that each foreign patient is charged about 20,000 USD, whereas each local patient 30,000 CNY (4,400 USD).

What would be the destinies of the 90 U.S. patients, along with 9 patients with SB and 3 patients with SCI (”were not helped by the procedure” [s]) at Beaumont, 8 children at All Children’s Hospital (”may eventually involve 100 children” [s]), as well as 6 SCI patients (”only 2 showed some improvement” [j]) in Germany?

On the same occasion, Dr. Peters told St. Petersburg Times: “I was wowed in China when I saw Dr. Xiao’s data.” [s]

Thus, the final question is: what data did Dr. Peters really see, or in other words, what data was Beaumont’s trial based on? the suspicious data from the non-existent report [25]? or the data similar to what Dr. Xiao created out of thin air then presented to the CAS? the widespread acceptance of the Xiao Procedure in China where it has never been accepted? the so called international recognition that Dr. Xiao told the expert panel while at the time he was fired by his U.S. employer? or the lightly mentioned “dramatically decreased incidence of these complications” [c, d], “small risk of some foot weakness” [t] or the later “cautious findings in Beaumont” that need to be “emphasized” and “prompted intense debate at All Children’s” [s]?

The answer to this final question is exactly to the very first question: how could the clinical trials have started in the U.S.?

 

REFERENCES

[a] Lumbar to Sacral Ventral Nerve Re-Routing.
Identifier: NCT00378664
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00378664

[b] Safety and Efficacy of Nerve Rerouting for Treating Neurogenic Bladder in Spina Bifida.
Project Number: 1R01DK084034-01
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7696321
He has reported that in 92 SCI patients, 88% regained bladder control within one year after the nerve rerouting surgery and in 110 children with spina bifida, reported success in 87% at one year. However, in China rigorous follow up is challenging….

[c] Xiao CG. Reinnervation for neurogenic bladder: historic review and introduction of a somatic-autonomic reflex pathway procedure for patients with spinal cord injury or spina bifida. Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):22-8; discussion 28-9. Epub 2005 Nov 2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16314037
[25] 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.

[d] Beaumont Hospitals’ press release.
Beaumont sees results in nation’s 1st urinary nerve rewiring surgeries for spina bifida patients. 04/17/2008.
https://www.beaumonthospitals.com/news-story-beaumont-results-urinary-nerve-rewiring-surgeries-spina-bifida-patients
Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D., reports an almost 90-percent success rate….Possible side effects of the surgery include mild postoperative spinal fluid leakage, lower extremity weakness and headache. Recent changes in the surgical technique have dramatically decreased the incidence of these complications. Standard risks associated with any surgery may include bleeding and infection.

[e] Beaumont Hospitals’ Research by Department, Urology.
https://www.beaumonthospitals.com/research-institute-research-by-department-urology
Beaumont Hospitals launched a research study to “rewire” nerves in the spinal cord in the hope of giving bladder control to people with spinal cord injury or spina bifida who otherwise depend on self-catheterization to urinate. The first procedure garnered national attention and appeared in more than 160 news outlets including U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Post and Forbes.
…Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D., reports an almost 90-percent success rate.

[f] Beaumont Hospitals’ one-year clinical report.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534709608843
Despite a reported success rate as high as 87% at one year, the procedure has not gained widespread acceptance outside of China.

[g] New Technique Helps Children with Spina Bifida.
Propaganda Department of the Party Committee of Wuhan Xiehe Hospital, August 28, 2004
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/176/44.html
http://www.cnhan.com/gb/content/2004-08/29/content_380330.htm
Since 2000, 62 patients with spina bifida have been treated in Xiehe Hospital, most of them have obtained remarkable effects. Among the 20 patients who were followed up systematically over two years after surgery, 17 patients obtained bladder control and voluntary voiding functions in 8-12 months after surgery…. Among the rest 42 patients, the bladder functions of 71% of 21 patients who underwent urodynamics examination (6-12 months after surgery) have improved; the other 21 patients are still to recover, since it is less than 6 months after surgery.

[h] Wuhan Xiehe Hospital “Exports” Surgery Technique.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology Weekly, Issue 205, March 2006
http://weekly.hustnews.com/text/show.aspx?id=6428
In 1995, Xiao Chuanguo, who invented “artificial reflex arc” after over 10 years of concentration, returned to China, and successfully performed the magic “artificial reflex arc” operation on a group of paraplegic patients for the first time. The patients obtained voluntary voiding function in about one year after operation. ???? Up to date, 218 “artificial reflex arc” operations have been carried out in China; the rate of effectiveness is as high as 80%.

[i] The Wonder of “Magic Reflex Arc”: Scratching Thigh to Cure Incontinence.
Hubei Provincial Broadcast and Television, News Channel, News at Six, March 29, 2009
http://news.hbtv.com.cn/content/2009-03/29/content_1614131.htm
Xiao Chuanguo: “We have solved the big problem that has not been solved in hundreds of years. We have done 1500 cases, the success rate is nearly 80%.”
At first, foreign experts were skeptical that how the problem for hundreds of years could be so easily solved by Xiao Chuanguo. Xiao did not argue, instead he went to the U.S. himself last year, and did 12 around-the-clock surgeries in the presence of experts from the world. All surgeries completely succeeded, astonishing the international medical communities. Experts around the world began to come to Wuhan on their own expense to learn the Xiao Procedure.

[j] Xiao Chuanguo’s presentation at the 30th Congress of SIU (SIU 2009)
Shanghai, China, November 1-5, 2009.
http://webcasts.prous.com/netadmin/webcast_viewer/Preview.aspx?type=0&lid=10196&pv=2
Slide 56: Xiao Procedure for Spina bifida
1406 cases since 2006 in Henan Center, of the 506 follow-up at 12 month post-surgery, 435 gained bladder control
Slide 57: Comparison of urodynamic data in spina bifida patients
Effective Rate: 435/506=85.9% Pre & Post Surgery(1yr)
Slide 80: Tubingen Experience, Germany
6 SCI patients, only 2 showed some improvement. Possible causes: incorrect patient selection? inappropriate postoperative care?

[k] Xiao Chuanguo’s web post.
http://www.rainbowplan.org/bbs/topic.php?topic=103290
Posted by: WWWW 2009-11-15 01:22:52
The intention to support to set up the (Shenyuan) Hospital was more effectively doing follow-up and scientific research, but (the doctors) were all busy doing surgeries. So nearly 1500 cases have been done in more than 2 years, but only about 400 of the patients were followed up with urodynamic study.

[l] Certificate for Xiao Chuanguo’s CAS application
Neuro-Urologic Surgery Research Center (a.k.a Shenyuan Hospital) at Zhengzhou University, February 28, 2007
Starting from Jan. of 2006, the Neuro-urological Surgery Research Center at Zhengzhou University has applied the “artificial somatic-autonomic reflex arc” technique invented by Professor Xiao Chuanguo to 117 patients with neurogenic bladder caused by spina bifida or meningomyelocele. Sixty cases were followed up for more than eight months. 85% of the patients have regained normal bladder and bowel functions.

[m] Xiao Chuanguo’s resume claiming he won AUA Achievement Award
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/041210_cgxiao_cv.doc

[n] Ho Leung Ho Lee Foundation’s website showing Xiao Chuanguo won AUA Achievement Award
http://www.hlhl.org.cn/english/showsub.asp?id=476
Dr. Xiao has been awarded … America Urological Association Achievement Award (2000)

[o] Summary order from US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
http://vlex.com/vid/chuan-guo-xiao-continuum-18536135

[p] Patients’ posts regarding Beaumont Hospitals’ responses.
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=2350&postcount=1
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=3209&postcount=3
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=3888&postcount=8

[q] Patients’ post regarding Beaumont Hospitals’ responses.
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=878421&postcount=44
our results are too immature to report yet in the spinal cord injury, …Dr. Xiao in China who developed the surgery may be able to perform this on you there.

[r] Letter from Beaumont Hospital on Xiao Procedure.
http://ronandmelissa.com/wp/?p=52

[s] Experimental Surgery Helps Relieve Kids with Spina Bifida and Spinal Injuries
By John Barry, Times Staff Writer, March 15, 2009
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article984049.ece

[t] CNN Interviews “Xiao Reflex Arc”
Chinese Journal of Clinical Urology, June 12, 2009
http://www.cjcu.com.cn/showart.aspx?artid=3187
In the U.S. Professor Xiao Chuanguo has conducted the clinical implementation of this technique, and so far has successfully treated more than 90 cases of incontinence caused by spinal cord injury, spina bifida and other spinal cord diseases.

[u] Surgery Might Aid Bladder Control after Spine Surgery
http://www.nctimes.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_8b6c668a-94bb-59fc-b7d3-266bef6ecbe3.html
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press, February 18, 2007
There are some risks, Peters cautioned, including general anesthesia and wound infections. For children with spina bifida who can walk, rerouting the thigh nerve causes a small risk of some foot weakness.

 



“肖氏术”何以在美国开始临床试验

25 02 2010年

所谓“肖氏术”在中国长久以来备受质疑,而且最近律师和记者们发现此手术无效且危险,然而,在美国却开始了临床试验[a, b]。那么,肖氏术何以在美国开始临床试验呢?通过彻查多方信息,我们的答案是:肖传国提供了肖氏术的的虚假或有问题的数据,而美国一些医院未加辨别就全 盘接受。

肖传国在《欧洲泌尿》发表了一篇综述文章[c],其中引用了他本人的一篇会议报告[25],声称:

“截至2004年底,我院对92名高反射性或无收缩性膀胱的脊髓损伤病人,行体神经-自主神经反射弧手术治 疗,其中81人术后一年获得膀胱功能控制[25]。……至今,我们已对110名脊髓脊膜膨出儿童安全地做了此手术[25],一年随访成功率为87%,而最 初报告的20例手术的成功率只有85%。……通过仅利用一半腰椎脊神经前根,左侧L4或L5术后运动功能的部分丧失这个唯一的手术并发症的发生率,已经从 最初20例手术的25%戏剧地下降到5%,仅有轻微的、并且可恢复的肌肉无力[25]。”

肖传国综述[c]中引用的报告[25]提供了迄今他所发表的文章中最高的成功率、最低的风险率和最多的病人数。这些数据顺理成章成为美国临床试验的 主要参考资料(见ClinicalTrials.gov的登记记录[a]和NIH资金网站的项目介绍[b]),并且被正在进行临床试验的Beaumont 医院在各种场合多次引述,例如在其新闻发布会[d]上,在其科室介绍[e]上,在其一年临床报告[f]上。

不幸的是,这些关键数据非常可疑。

肖传国所在医院宣传部2004年8月28日的材料[g]称:“2000年至今……武汉协和医院治疗脊髓脊膜膨出患者62例”,其中包括肖传国最早的 “随访两年以上的20例患者”。然而,肖传国竟然在2005年7月2-4日的报告[25]中给出了截止2004年底术后一年随访成功率为87%的110名 脊髓脊膜膨出儿童患者,且未包括最早的20例患者。

另外,肖传国所在大学2006年3月的新闻[h]称:“截至目前,国内已开展‘人工反射弧’手术218例,有效率高达80%。”可是,肖传国的文章 [c]共综述了237个病例(报告[25]中的92个脊髓损伤和110个脊髓脊膜膨出,以及先前论文中的15个脊髓损伤和20个脊髓脊膜膨出),而且这些 病例在2004年底前就已经回访一年了。简单计算一下可知,2006年3月新闻[h]中有174例有效,而2005年综述文章[c]中却总共有206例成 功(报告[25]中81 + 110×87%,先前论文中5×80% + 20×85%)。

肖传国所在单位毫无理由贬低他的成就。病人数目和成功或有效率上的矛盾只能这样解释:肖传国在其论文中夸大或捏造数据。

事实上,即便肖传国本人所列的数据也前后不一。2009年3月29日,肖传国在电视上称“成功率接近80%”[i]。数月后,在他的SIU 2009演讲[j]中,成功率戏剧性地增大到86.2%。而且,其演讲中声称“术后随访12个月的病人有506例”,且给出了这506例尿流动力学统计数 据。几天后,肖传国在论坛上说漏了嘴,发帖[k]称“有尿流动力学随访的只有400来人”。

最后,文献数据库中并不存在这篇会议报告[25]。确实有个“首届临床泌尿外科杂志国际学术会议”(上海2005年7月2-4日),主办单位就是肖传国任主编的《临床泌尿外科杂志》;文献数据库中也确实有这次会议的论文集,却不见肖传国那篇会议报告的踪影。

很不幸,这并非肖传国假造临床数据的唯一一例。

2007年2月28日,郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心(即神源医院)给身为该中心主任的肖传国出具了一份正式文件[l],用于申报中国科学院院院 士。院士身份对中国科研人员来说是最高荣耀。这份证明文件声称:自2006年1月起,该中心开始应用肖氏术治疗了117例患者,“术后随访8个月以上60 例,85%的患者大小便已恢复正常。”

此证明文件所述绝非事实。该中心直到2006年8月才成立,8月13日才做了第一例手术。荒唐的是,成立不到七个月,该中心就为其中心主任鼓捣出声 称“术后随访8个月”的证明文件。这件荒唐事当然不是文件签署日期写错了,因为中科院规定的申报材料提交截止日期是2007年4月30日。

事实上,肖传国长久以来一直撒谎。仅举几例。他曾在简历中谎称获得了“美国泌尿学会(AUA)成就奖”。方舟子将此问题连同肖传国的其他不端行为曝 光后,这份简历从网上消失了,但网上仍见获AUA成就奖的声称,例如何梁何利基金会的网站[n]。另一个例子是,肖传国曾告诉鉴定委员会,他的肖氏术得到 了国际承认;肖传国没有告诉鉴定委员会的是,他的论文极少被同行引用,而且,当时他的成果甚至都不被当时的美国雇主承认,美国雇主“歧视他,……终止雇用 他为研究主任;强迫他在用于储藏油漆、瓦片和窗框的实验室中工作”(见美国联邦上诉法院判决书[o])

既然肖传国敢于伪造正式文件用于申请中国的最高学术头衔,敢于在其奖项和成就方面撒谎,他当然可以在论文中玩弄同样手段以期论文能发表在欧洲的高档泌尿杂志上,随后再用来欺骗美国的机构。

在中国,肖传国每两年申请一次院士,连续三次失败。在中国,他的肖氏术根本不被接受。讽刺的是,在美国,肖氏术的临床试验却开始了。

问题是,美国的顶级机构(例如美国国立卫生院、Beaumont医院和ACH医院)真幼稚到会上当受骗,然后根据可疑数据匆匆启动临床试验吗?

答案绝对是肯定的。

“此术式在中国之外并未获得普遍接受”,Beaumont医院一年临床报告[f]中的这句话暗示肖氏术“在中国之内”已获得普遍接受。他们在至少三次回答患者问询时说的更直接[p, q, r]:

在中国,这个手术现在是常规手术。肖医生已把该手术方法教给了中国所有主要医院的外科医生。
……
>> 在中国,这个手术现在是常规手术。肖医生已把该手术方法教给了全中国的外科医生。中国各个医院每天都在做这个手术。如果你真想让你儿子做这个手术,我们建 议去中国做。……如果你真的想去中国,我会很高兴将你的信息转给肖医生。我对其他患者家庭就是这么做的。

Beaumont关于肖氏术的接受情况绝非反映了事实。谎言的根源显然是肖传国。

肖氏术并非中国的常规手术。肖传国接受中国新闻周刊采访时承认,他没能教会中国的医生这个手术,只有他的团队有做这个手术的能力。另外,中国主要医 院都不做这个手术。2006年中期之前,只有肖传国任泌尿主任的所在大学附属医院做这个手术;2006年8月之后,做这个手术的就只有肖传国拥有30%股 份的营利性当地私营医院神源了。

除了肖传国的的团队,中国的其他医生从来没有做过该手术,更不要提该手术如何在中国被普遍接受了。不但批评家不接受,医生和患者也不接受。方舟子及 新语丝读者从2005年开始就质疑该手术,方舟子还因此面临肖传国的近10起名誉损害诉讼。方舟子在肖传国家乡的地方法院输了其中一场官司,法院判决书成 了在中文论坛流传的笑料:“被告方是民在历年获奖者名单中没有找到原告的名字不能否认原告获奖的事实。因此,原告曾获得美国泌尿学会学者奖奖项的事实成 立。”最近,一些顶级专家终于不顾肖传国的诉讼威胁,表达了对事态的关注,认为肖氏术可疑,缺乏科学证据,而且尚未进行充分适当的临床试验就不道德地开展 营利性手术。这些专家包括泌尿外科唯一的工程院院士,大医院泌尿科的主任,甚至还有当时鉴定过肖氏术的专家组成员。另外,肖氏术向来在中文论坛上臭名昭 著,做过手术的患者在网上纷纷抱怨,患者的帖子中找不到一例成功的。肖氏术唯一受欢迎的地方当属50多个(2007年底统计)网络广告网站,神源医院招徕 病人的帖子与治疗癌症、糖尿病的广告一起在网上泛滥。

Beaumont接受并传播所谓“普遍接受”的谎言,更严重的是,他们在一年临床报告中引用该谎言,表明他们的临床试验至少部分地基于该谎言。最为 严重的是,在至少两份对患者的回复中,他们建议病人去中国做手术,而且“对其他患者家庭就是这么做的”,不顾该手术对他们来说“很多都是未知”[b],并 且“结果太不成熟”[q]。

Beaumont医院领导临床试验的泌尿科主任Kenneth Peters医生对St. Petersburg时报说:由于未知,“如果患者家长走进我的办公室掏出5万美元(要求做手术),我必须拒绝。手术带来的好处能否值得冒险?我现在还不 好说。”当时他正要在第一届脊柱裂研究世界会议上“强调要小心”。

但是,Beaumont医院对那些“绝望中求助[s]”的患者实际上已经做了些什么?

多亏了Beaumont医院努力传播谎言,据肖传国的《临床泌尿外科杂志》网站在他接受CNN采访后宣布[t],已经有90余例美国患者被“成功治疗”。我们注意到,国外病人每位被收取约两万美元,而中国病人是三万人民币(约4400美元)。

这90余例美国患者命运将会怎样?还有Beaumont医院的9个脊柱裂和3个“手术无助”[s]的脊髓损伤患者,ACH医院的8个患者(“最终将做100个儿童患者”[s]),以及德国的6个脊髓损伤患者(“仅两例有些改善”[j])。

当时,Peters医生还告诉St. Petersburg时报:“我在中国看到肖医生的数据时,我赞叹不已”[s]

因此,我们最后的问题是:Peters医生到底看到了什么数据?换句话来问就是:Beaumont医院的临床试验所依靠的是什么数据?是并不存在的 报告[25]中给出的可疑数据?是类似于肖传国凭空捏造出来申请院士的数据?是肖氏术在中国根本就不存在的所谓的普遍接受?是肖传国告诉鉴定专家组的所谓 国际承认而他当时实际上被美国雇主炒鱿鱼?或者,是轻描淡写的“并发症的发生戏剧性地降低了”[c, d]、“足部软弱的小风险”[t],还是后来的需要“强掉”并“在ACH医院激起激烈辩论”的“Beaumont医院发现应小心谨慎”[s]?

对这个最后的问题的回答,也正是对最开始的问题的回答:“肖氏术”何以在美国开始临床试验?

 

参考资料

[a] Lumbar to Sacral Ventral Nerve Re-Routing.
Identifier: NCT00378664
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00378664

[b] Safety and Efficacy of Nerve Rerouting for Treating Neurogenic Bladder in Spina Bifida.
Project Number: 1R01DK084034-01
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7696321
He has reported that in 92 SCI patients, 88% regained bladder control within one year after the nerve rerouting surgery and in 110 children with spina bifida, reported success in 87% at one year. However, in China rigorous follow up is challenging….

[c] Xiao CG. Reinnervation for neurogenic bladder: historic review and introduction of a somatic-autonomic reflex pathway procedure for patients with spinal cord injury or spina bifida. Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):22-8; discussion 28-9. Epub 2005 Nov 2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16314037
[25] 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.

[d] Beaumont医院新闻发布
Beaumont sees results in nation’s 1st urinary nerve rewiring surgeries for spina bifida patients. 04/17/2008.
https://www.beaumonthospitals.com/news-story-beaumont-results-urinary-nerve-rewiring-surgeries-spina-bifida-patients
Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D., reports an almost 90-percent success rate….Possible side effects of the surgery include mild postoperative spinal fluid leakage, lower extremity weakness and headache. Recent changes in the surgical technique have dramatically decreased the incidence of these complications. Standard risks associated with any surgery may include bleeding and infection.

[e] Beaumont医院泌尿科介绍
https://www.beaumonthospitals.com/research-institute-research-by-department-urology
Beaumont Hospitals launched a research study to “rewire” nerves in the spinal cord in the hope of giving bladder control to people with spinal cord injury or spina bifida who otherwise depend on self-catheterization to urinate. The first procedure garnered national attention and appeared in more than 160 news outlets including U.S.News & World Report, The Washington Post and Forbes.
…Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D., reports an almost 90-percent success rate.

[f] Beaumont医院一年临床报告
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534709608843
Despite a reported success rate as high as 87% at one year, the procedure has not gained widespread acceptance outside of China.

[g] 新技术助脊柱裂患儿“方便”
华中科技大学协和医院党委宣传部
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/176/44.html
又见2004年8月29日长江日报
http://www.cnhan.com/gb/content/2004-08/29/content_380330.htm
……2000 年至今,武汉协和医院治疗脊髓脊膜膨出患者62例,绝大部分取得了显著效果。在术后已获系统随访两年以上的20例患者中,17例手术后 8-12月获得控尿和自主排尿功能……在其余42例中,已经进行尿动力学随访的21例(术后6-12个月),膀胱功能已改善者达71%,其余21例因术后 时间少6于个月,正在恢复中。
袁柏春 聂一钢撰稿
2004年8月28日

[h] 协和医院“出口”外科技术
华中科技大学周报2006年3月总第205期
http://weekly.hustnews.com/text/show.aspx?id=6428
本报讯 1995年,在美国潜心攻关 10多年发明了“人工反射弧”的肖传国回到祖国,首次成功地为一批截瘫患者进行了神奇的“人工反射弧”手术,术后约一年患者获得了自我控制排尿功能。……截至目前,国内已开展“人工反射弧”手术218例,有效率高达80%。
『协和医院 彭晓兰 沈艳』

[i] 挠大腿治失禁 “神奇反射弧”真神
http://news.hbtv.com.cn/content/2009-03/29/content_1614131.htm
湖北省广播电视总台
火凤网>> 新闻频道>> 新闻节目>> 今晚六点>>正文
2009-03-29 18:30
肖传国:“在临床上,解决了几百年没有解决的大问题,我们做了1500例了,成功率接近80%。”
刚开始,国外专家对肖传国持怀疑态度,几百年的难题,哪能这么容易解决。肖传国没有争辩,去年只身到美国,当着各国专家的面,连做12台手术,全部成功。震动了国际医学界。世界各国专家开始纷纷自费来到武汉,学习肖氏手术。

[j] 肖传国在SIO 2009的演讲
Shangai, China, November 1-5, 2009.
http://webcasts.prous.com/netadmin/webcast_viewer/Preview.aspx?type=0&lid=10196&pv=2
Slide 56: Xiao Procedure for Spina bifida
1406 cases since 2006 in Henan Center, of the 506 follow-up at 12 month post-surgery, 435 gained bladder control
Slide 57: Camparison of urodynamic data in spina bifida patients
Effective Rate: 435/506=85.9% Pre & Post Surgery(1yr)
Slide 80: Tubingen Experience, Germany
6 SCI patients, only 2 showed some improvement. Possible causes: incorrect patient selection? inappropriate postoperative care?

[k] 肖传国的网帖
http://www.rainbowplan.org/bbs/topic.php?topic=103290
送交者: WWWW 于 2009-11-15 01:22:52
当初支持设立医院就是为了更好随访和科研……:2年多作了近1500人,有尿流动力学随访的只有400来人,都忙于开刀去了。

[l] 肖传国2007年申报院士证明
证明
郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心,自2006年1月开始应用肖传国教授发明的“人工体神经-内脏神经反射弧”技术,治疗脊柱裂、脊髓脊膜膨出所致的神经原性膀胱患者117例,术后随访8个月以上60例,85%的患者大小便已恢复正常。
特此证明
2007年2月28日
郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心

[m] 肖传国的简历,声称获得AUA成就奖
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/041210_cgxiao_cv.doc

[n] 何梁何利基金会的网站,声称肖传国获得AUA成就奖
http://www.hlhl.org.cn/english/showsub.asp?id=476
Dr. Xiao has been awarded … America Urological Association Achievement Award (2000)

[o] 美国联邦上诉法院第二巡回法庭判决书
http://vlex.com/vid/chuan-guo-xiao-continuum-18536135

[p] 患者公布的Beaumont医院对患者问询的答复
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=2350&postcount=1
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=3209&postcount=3
http://spinabifidaconnection.com/showpost.php?p=3888&postcount=8

[q] 患者公布的Beaumont医院对患者问询的答复
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=878421&postcount=44
our results are too immature to report yet in the spinal cord injury, …Dr. Xiao in China who developed the surgery may be able to perform this on you there.

[r] Beaumont医院对患者问询肖氏术的回信
http://ronandmelissa.com/wp/?p=52

[s] Experimental Surgery Helps Relieve Kids with Spina Bifida and Spinal Injuries
By John Barry, Times Staff Writer, March 15, 2009
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article984049.ece

[t] 美国电视媒体CNN来汉采访“肖氏反射弧”
来源:中国临床泌尿外科网 发布时间:2009-6-12 14:57:28
http://www.cjcu.com.cn/showart.aspx?artid=3187
而在美国,肖传国教授也已将该技术进行了临床推广,迄今已成功治疗脊髓损伤患者、脊柱裂脊膜膨出患儿和脊髓其他病变所致大小便失控90余例。

[u] Surgery Might Aid Bladder Control after Spine Surgery
http://www.nctimes.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_8b6c668a-94bb-59fc-b7d3-266bef6ecbe3.html
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press, February 18, 2007
There are some risks, Peters cautioned, including general anesthesia and wound infections. For children with spina bifida who can walk, rerouting the thigh nerve causes a small risk of some foot weakness.

 



著名的病人小善善找到了!——评肖传国们丧尽天良的虚假宣传

10 12 2009年

肖传国们对“肖氏弧”进行虚假宣传,一是与“老军医”、“中医世家”打成一片,利用网络时代的“高科技”(见《郑州神源泌尿外科医院“肖氏反射弧”医疗广告贴到网络“电线杆”上(XYS20080101)》);二是利用充当枪手的无良媒体,其中以《大河报》、《南国都市报》、直至中央电视台“健康之路”栏目等以小善善为工具所作的宣传为甚,众多患者因此上当受骗。

小善善是媒体宣传中唯一“可信”的“肖氏弧”成功之例。从三年前的术前、术中、术后,直至今年年初的媒体回访,大规模、长时间、全方位的跟踪报道,使其看起来完全像是真的。而其他报道,均为手术后立竿见影、以及病童“性功能得以改善”之类的一眼即可识破的无稽之“吹”(见《“著名的病人小善善找不到了?”——“肖氏反射弧”的虚假宣传和无耻谎言(XYS20091117)》)。而且,即便郑州神源医院网站自己的报道,除小善善外,其他也均为刚出院的病人以及 “还不像正常人一样”、尿动力检查几乎无效、正在针对后遗症进行康复训练之类的病人。

小善善也是肖传国本人最看重的所谓“底牌”之一(其他“底牌”见《肖传国的“同花顺”(XYS20091202)》)。几个星期前,为了反驳律师的“肖氏弧”无效调查结果和中国新闻周刊的揭露报道,肖传国亮出了这张“底牌”:“这种和方舟子同类的流氓记者公开撒谎是是他们的特长:百度一下,小善善的报道铺天盖地。贴篇09年初的报道。这小善善是我在郑州作的第一个病人”。

更早些时候,肖传国在网上曾得意洋洋地“抽空介绍下XIAO PROCEDURE近况”:“……其实这和做那小善善的手术一样,没有很大把握就不会那样在全国媒体关注下做手术啦:如果失败,岂不是自倒招牌?:-))) 大家想想:方舟子这伙没人性的混蛋是多么多么希望小善善手术失败呀!”

肖传国“在全国媒体关注下做手术”,小善善是中国第一例。这个“招牌”倒了。继74位患者无效率73%、致残率39%、成功率为零的律师调查结果公布、神源医院支支吾吾不愿透露小善善联系方式之后,北京科技报令人震惊却又不出意料地发现,这位被疯狂地用作宣传工具、“报道铺天盖地”的“已经被治愈”的可怜病童,“手术后还没有好,他还是不懂排尿,现在走路一拐一拐的。”……7岁的善善至今还要穿着“尿不湿”。(见《调查神源医院》(XYS20091208))

肖传国“在全国媒体关注下做手术”,在美国也有个第一例。那个“招牌”也倒了。2006年圣诞节前轰动美国媒体、在电视上表达出对“肖氏弧”手术效果无限渴望的小伙子Kevin Bryant,他的母亲最近在问哪里能给他买到尿管。(见《肖传国在美国Beaumont医院做的三例脊柱损伤病人手术都无效(XYS20090818)》)

肖传国们的虚假宣传从中国吹到国外,又“出口转内吹”吹回中国。

例如,通过美国Beaumont医院“转吹”其87%成功率、在中国的广泛普及、“小风险”(见《美国医院是这么“转吹”“肖氏手术”的(XYS20091124)》)。

又如,在肖传国任主编的《临床泌尿外科杂志》网站和郑州神源网站“内外兼吹”:“患者接受手术后,只需挠挠大腿内侧,就可以自主控制排尿,甩掉尿袋子。目前,这一技术在国内已经得到广泛临床应用。而在美国,肖传国教授也已将该技术进行了临床推广,迄今已成功治疗脊髓损伤患者、脊柱裂脊膜膨出患儿和脊髓其他病变所致大小便失控90余例。”

再如,国外正在进行、部分已宣告失败的临床试验也成为肖传国在湖北电视台的“出口转内吹”:“刚开始,国外专家对肖传国持怀疑态度,几百年的难题,哪能这么容易解决。肖传国没有争辩,去年只身到美国,当着各国专家的面,连做12台手术,全部成功。震动了国际医学界。世界各国专家开始纷纷自费来到武汉,学习肖氏手术。”(见http://news.hbtv.com.cn/content/2009-03/29/content_1614131.htm

肖传国及郑州神源医院的肖传国们的欺诈宣传,目的是什么?真的是肖传国所谓的“建立这个医院的初衷就是要把科研做起来”吗?

自称让肖传国“颇为不满”、“肖传国不让我干了”的神源医院前院长高晓群声称,肖传国曾对他表示,经营医院就应该以赢利为目的。

毫无疑问,欺诈宣传的目的显然不是为了肖传国所谓的“要把科研做起来”,而是他对高晓群所表示的“以赢利为目的”——为谋取不义之财而不择手段,包括招纳以“公开撒谎”为“特长”的“流氓记者”来当吹鼓手,纠集杜茂信、高晓群以及仍在坚称“目前,手术能达到85%的治愈率”的何朝宏这些“没人性的混蛋”来谋财害人。

肖传国们已经靠无耻谎言从两千多病人手中骗取了约5千万元,在美国“成功治疗”的“90余例”又是180万美元(按一位受“外吹”欺骗来中国做手术的巴基斯坦患者网上公布的2万美元计算)。

代价是病人的无效、乃至致残和倾家荡产。

“在全国媒体关注下做手术”的小善善、Kevin Bryant手术失败了,连同其他无一成功的接受律师调查的患者,以及全部失败的美国、德国SCI病人。——这无疑宣告了肖传国们丧尽天良的虚假宣传的破产。

那么,那些无效、乃至致残和倾家荡产、已经或即将起诉的受害病人会得到补偿吗?顶着医生帽子的“没人性的混蛋”肖传国们、以及以“公开撒谎”为“特长”的“流氓记者”们,他们会得到应有的惩罚吗?

让我们拭目以待。



肖传国的“同花顺”

1 12 2009年

据说肖传国手上有一把“同花顺”,日前披马甲“WWWW”在网上叫嚣:“到时候底牌一亮,那些狗日的们统统完蛋,岂不快哉?:—)”

肖传国的“同花顺”其实还远没有摸全。现在手上是:梅花3、4、5……后面是红桃6(或7)、方块10。

梅花3、4、5分别是15例脊柱损伤SCI(J.Urology 2003)、20例脊柱裂SB(J.Urology 2005),以及92例SCI和110例SB(European Urology 2006)。

红桃6(或7)是美国Beaumont医院的9例SB+3例SCI。花色与梅花3、4、5不同,因为3例SCI“手术无助”(“were not helped by the procedure”)。鉴于9例SB有一定程度的效果(Beaumont一年报告中说“7 children”有效果,而未提其中的成人),理论上在数字方面存在跟梅花3、4、5顺起来的可能性。

方块10是德国6例SCI。鉴于肖传国在11月初SIU 2009会议上承认这6例中“只有两例表现出一些改善”(“only 2 showed some improvement”),应属失败,因此花色、数字与前面的牌均顺不起来。

Beaumont和德国的SCI病例失败,已经注定肖传国的牌“同花”不了了。

SCI失败的原因是什么?反过来说,SB有一定程度的效果,起作用的是什么?

肖是从SCI起步的,猫、矿工、狗(我没有写错,是这个顺序)的活体实验最初都是关于SCI的。对于SCI和SB,“神经学原理相同”(“The neurological principals underlying the procedure were the same”,肖传国论文中的话)。现在SCI病人无效、而基于相同原理的“再后来要做小孩,更难”(肖传国马甲“搬运工”语)的SB居然有某种程度的效果,这意味着起作用的根本就不是“重要的是作为其根基的所谓肖氏反射弧”(“搬运工”语)。

肖传国将德国、Beaumont的SCI失败归咎于术后护理(应指未停用Ditropan),不能解释Beaumont同样护理的SB反而有一定程度的效果。

肖传国将德国SCI失败归咎于病人挑选问题,反而意味着Beaumont的SB病人之所以有效果,应部分归功于精心挑选病人(其一年报告也说,病人通过了“广泛的术前评估 extensive preoperative evaluation”)。

8 个多月前,在其内部引起“激烈争论”(“intense debate”)后,美国ACH开始了7例SB和1例SCI试验,其中7例SB有对照:治疗组“肖弧”+栓系松解术(detethering),对照组仅栓系松解术。为避免Beaumont试验中出现的损害病人下肢运动功能的风险,ACH病人都是坐轮椅的。值得注意到是,ACH的7例病人原本都需要做栓系松解术,而文献中有大量栓系松解术治疗、改善膀胱功能的资料。

SCI病例失败而Beaumont的SB病例有一定程度的效果,因此可以顺理成章得到解释:Beaumont的SB病人,跟ACH的病人一样,同时做了栓系松解术,正是这栓系松解术起了作用。如果这些病人当时没有专门做栓系松解术,那么是“肖弧”手术切开病变部位等起到了栓系松解术的相同作用。

【补注】据最新《北京科技报》对高晓群的采访,可以确认“肖弧”手术同时做松解术,因此无需上段后面一句中的猜测。

前河南神源医院院长高晓群向《北京科技报》解释,……“肖氏反射弧”采用的方法则是除了松解以外,医生还会用患儿上肢或者腰部健康的神经连接到受损的膀胱神经上,让膀胱神经与健康神经生在一起恢复成健康神经。

需要指出的是,Beaumont和德国的SCI病例失败,说明肖传国前面那三张梅花3、4、5中的梅花3(15例SCI)是“出老千”搞来的。梅花5(92例SCI+110例SB)也是(见《肖传国“反射弧”论文胡吹捏造数据(XYS20091125)》)。

桌上还有最后一张牌,那就是ACH的试验结果。肖传国如果能撑住,有幸未因“出老千”而提前出局而有机会摸这张牌的话,我们将会不出预料地看到,那是一张黑桃9。

 



肖传国“反射弧”论文胡吹捏造数据

25 11 2009年

肖传国2006年1月在European Urology上发了一篇关于其“反射弧”的综述论文,其中引用了他本人的一篇会议报告[25],声称:

“截至2004年底,我院【指华中技大学同济医学院附属协和医院】对92名高反射性或无收缩性膀胱的脊髓损伤病人,行体神经-自主神经反射弧手术治疗,其中81人术后一年获得膀胱功能控制【即成功率为88%】[25]。……至今,我们已对110名脊髓脊膜膨出儿童安全地做了此手术[25],一年随访成功率为87%,而最初【指2005年6月The Journal of Urology论文】报告的20例手术的成功率只有85%。……通过仅利用一半腰椎脊神经前根,左侧L4或L5术后运动功能的部分丧失这个唯一的手术并发症的发生率,已经从最初20例手术的25%戏剧地下降到5%,仅有轻微的、并且可恢复的肌肉无力[25]。”

本综述论文引用的会议报告[25]的数据,是本论文的立论基础。然而,这些数据是胡吹捏造的。

会议报告称,截止2004年底一年随访了92名脊髓损伤和110名脊髓脊膜膨出病人,即2003年底之前共做了202例手术。实际情况如何呢?2004年8月28日的华中科技大学协和医院党委宣传部的宣传材料称:“2000年至今……武汉协和医院治疗脊髓脊膜膨出患者62例”,其中两年随访20例、术后6-12个月21例、术后少于6个月21例。也就是说,2003年底之前实际只有40余例脊髓脊膜膨出病人,而肖传国在会议报告中吹成了110名。

另外,华中科技大学周报2006年3月总第205期新闻称:“截至目前,国内已开展‘人工反射弧’手术218例,有效率高达80%”。从2003年底到2006年3月的二年多时间,仅仅增加了16例手术,这可能吗?

而且,从新闻中的数据推算,有218*80%=174名“手术有效”病人。而从会议报告中的数据推算,三年多前居然已经有81+110*87%=177名“手术成功”病人。当年多出来的3个“成功”病人是怎么来的?何况还有后来增加的16例手术,难道16例全部失败?

此外,所谓“戏剧地下降到5%,且仅轻微的并且可恢复的肌肉无力”的手术并发症发生率谎言,早已被律师调查的手术效果统计数据揭穿,那就是论文发表之后、神源医院2006年8月开业后的病人的“致残率高达39%”。

显然,综述论文和会议报告中87%、88%的成功率和5%并发症发生率是胡吹的,病人人数是捏造的。特别其中的成功率数据登峰造极,为迄今为止最高,即便党委宣传部的宣传材料后来也只宣称“有效率高达80%”。当然,后来神源医院又吹上去,成了85%了。更有肖传国在美国的合作者Beaumont医院在2008年4月17日新闻发布稿中再次“转吹”近90%成功率(Chuan-Guo Xiao, M.D., reports an almost 90-percent success rate)。

可以推测,Beaumont医院为使手术试验获得批准必然要提供“学术”证据,因此其“转吹”的成功率、并发症发生率数据当然不会来自肖传国的口头吹嘘,而是来自其学术文章。Beaumont医院所谓近90%成功率以及“最近的技术发展已戏剧性地降低了这些并发症的发生率”(Recent changes in the surgical technique have dramatically decreased the incidence of these complications),均来自上述综述论文和会议报告。实际上,来自美国的几位人士参加了2005年7月的那次所谓“The International Conference of Urology”(原为《临床泌尿外科杂志》“第12届临床泌尿外科全国学术会议”,后改为“首届临床泌尿外科国际学术会议”,会前4天成了“首届临床泌尿外科杂志国际学术会议”)。从那开始,陆续有“包括美国专家在内的8名洋专家”参加肖传国开展的“国际学习班”,“目前仍有十几名外国专家排队等候学习,肖传国拟推动这一临床新技术在多国开展。”(见2006年3月7日武汉晚报)。

因此,正是这篇会议报告和综述论文中胡吹、捏造的数据成为国外“肖氏反射弧”手术试验的最根本的依据。

值得注意的是,肖传国的那篇会议报告只被其综述论文自引了一次。令人惊奇的是,尽管此会议论文集被文献数据库收录,作为“首届临床泌尿外科杂志国际学术会议”主办单位《临床泌尿外科杂志》主编的肖传国,他的那篇会议报告却不见踪影。难道肖传国的国外合作者Beaumont医院等,进行手术试验依靠的果真是肖传国的口头吹嘘?

附录:

【1】肖传国2006年在European Urology上发了一篇关于其“反射弧”的综述文章
CG Xiao. Reinnervation for Neurogenic Bladder: Historic Review and Introduction of a Somatic-Autonomic Reflex Pathway Procedure for Patients with Spinal Cord Injury or Spina Bifida. Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):22-8. Epub 2005 Nov 2.

By the end of 2004, a total of 92 SCI patients with hyper reflexic or acontractile bladder in our hospital have been treated with the somatic and autonomic reflex arc procedure and 81 of them regained bladder control one year postoperatively [25].
……
Up to date, we have performed the procedure for bladder and bowel control safely on 110 children with spina bifida [25]. The rate of success at the one year follow-up is 87%, compared to the 85% for the first 20 cases reported.

…Occurrence rate of partial loss of the left L4 or L5 motor function after surgery, the only complication for 25% of the first 20 cases, has been dramatically reduced to 5% with only slighter and recoverable muscular weakness by using only half of the lumbar ventral root [25].

[25] 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.

【2】华中科技大学协和医院党委宣传部的宣传材料
又见2004年8月29日长江日报 http://www.cnhan.com/gb/content/2004-08/29/content_380330.htm
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/176/44.html
新技术助脊柱裂患儿“方便”
……2000年至今,武汉协和医院治疗脊髓脊膜膨出患者62例,绝大部分取得了显著效果。在术后已获系统随访两年以上的20例患者中,17例手术后 8-12月获得控尿和自主排尿功能……在其余42例中,已经进行尿动力学随访的21例(术后6-12个月),膀胱功能已改善者达71%,其余21例因术后时间少6于个月,正在恢复中。
华中科技大学协和医院党委宣传部
袁柏春 聂一钢撰稿
2004年8月28日

【3】华中科技大学周报2006年总第205期的新闻
http://weekly.hustnews.com/text/show.aspx?id=6428
Huazhong University of Science and Technology Weekly
华中科技大学周报(电子版)
协和医院“出口”外科技术
(2006年)总第205期 综合新闻
本报讯 1995年,在美国潜心攻关 10多年发明了“人工反射弧”的肖传国回到祖国,首次成功地为一批截瘫患者进行了神奇的“人工反射弧”手术,术后约一年患者获得了自我控制排尿功能。……截至目前,国内已开展“人工反射弧”手术218例,有效率高达80%。
『协和医院 彭晓兰 沈艳』



“著名的病人小善善找不到了?”——“肖氏反射弧”的虚假宣传和无耻谎言

14 11 2009年

肖传国化名在论坛发帖,以小善善等个例试图反驳律师得到的“肖氏反射弧”无效的调查结果和中国新闻周刊的揭露报道:

中国新闻周刊记者还特别提到,希望能与海南患儿小善善取得联系。在记者接触的家长中不少都是因为看了有关他手术成功的报道,才来就诊的。而贾斌回答说:“他家电话前两年还通呢,现在不知为什么,我也打不通”。

肖传国为此质问:“著名的病人小善善找不到了?”并以“百度一下,小善善的报道铺天盖地”作为反驳,并贴出一篇2009年初的报道。

其实,这篇报道及相关报道,正是“肖氏反射弧”虚假宣传的例证。在这篇新闻中,充当肖传国枪手的《南国都市报》记者称:“2008年12月 21日,本报记者再次给善善的父亲王亚伍打电话。电话一接通,还没有来得及报出姓名就被对方听出了声音。”枪手记者可以随时联络小善善家电话,神源医院专门负责随访的工作人员贾斌怎么就联系不上了呢?看来,肖传国要质问的,恰恰该是这个贾斌:“著名的病人小善善找不到了?”

小善善是郑州神源成立后由肖传国在2006年8月13日作的该医院第一个病人。河南和海南媒体在术前术后疯狂炒作,最离谱的是手术做完不到两个月,就在2006年10月12日河南日报狂吹“无影灯下的中国‘功夫’”,诈称“国外专家惊叹:小善善甩掉伴他四年的‘尿不湿’”。要知道,即便肖传国本人,也只敢宣称6到8个月后才会见效。

“肖氏反射弧”虚假宣传的例证绝非仅小善善一例。又如新华网河南频道2006年10月18日报道:“河南周口男孩阳阳……17日上午躺在郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心的无影灯下,接受我国创立的体神经‘嫁接’新术式,并从此甩掉了伴他4年的‘尿不湿’,恢复了正常的大小便排泄功能。”“肖氏弧”手术刚作完,枪手们就狂吹成功。能立竿见影,“肖氏弧”真是神了,怎能不让“国外专家惊叹”?

新华网河南频道的报道还称:“据郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心术后随访证实,这一新术式通过患者自己的体神经与内脏神经‘嫁接’,不仅让患者恢复了大小便功能,也使患者的性功能得以改善,基本达到了正常的生理状态。”2006 年8月1日才开张的“郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心”,2006年10月18日报道的“术后随访”,是什么时候做的手术?另外,据枪手记者的相关报道,神源医院最初的病人“最小的8岁,最大的17岁,……这些病人年龄都偏小,所以他们基本上都是跟着爸爸妈妈一起来的”。这些“年龄都偏小”的病童,居然“性功能得以改善”,这算是“肖氏弧”的奇迹吧?

肖传国们除了明目张胆地雇佣枪手记者胡吹以蒙骗招徕病人,还借院士申请材料不对公众公开而出具子虚乌有的治愈率假证明用于肖传国院士申报。那个院士申报假证明称:郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心,自2006年1月开始应用肖传国教授发明的“人工体神经-内脏神经反射弧”技术,治疗脊柱裂、脊髓脊膜膨出所致的神经原性膀胱患者117例,术后随访8个月以上60例,85%的患者大小便已恢复正常。方舟子揭露此假证明后,肖传国在网上发帖辩解道:“神源医院那应用证明的日期……这份证明材料在4月底最后上报审核时我发现日期不对,已改过来了。”2007年院士材料上报截止日期是4月30日。肖传国你改的是哪个日期?是证明出具日期2007年2月28日,还是神源医院早在2006年8月1日开张之前就“开始应用”反射弧的“2006年1月”?肖传国你怎么改日期才能凑出“术后随访8个月以上”?

肖传国显然还将同样的谎言撒向国外媒体和国外合作者。比如,国外媒体报道时,均指明85%治愈率为肖传国自称。又如,肖传国通过美国合作者之口欺骗来函询问的患者家长,称“在中国,此手术现为常规治疗手段,肖医生已经将此手术教给中国所有大医院的外科医生”、“中国医院天天都做这种手术”、并建议病人直接去中国找肖传国(见《肖传国吹牛成瘾谎言连篇两例》(XYS20090819))。

肖传国本人、肖传国占30%股份的郑州神源医院、肖传国任主任的郑州大学神经泌尿外科研究中心、以及那种和肖传国同类的流氓记者,公开撒谎是他们的特长(肖传国的论坛帖子对本句有贡献)。肖传国们正是依靠治愈率85%等无耻谎言,从国内骗到国外、又从国外骗到国内。靠这些谎言,肖传国三次申请工程院或科学院院士;靠这些谎言,肖传国骗取了中国和美国分别数千万人民币和数百万美元科研资金;更为无耻的是,靠这些谎言,肖传国们蒙骗了两千多病人,从本已贫穷的病人手中骗取了约5千万元(按肖传国自称的郑州两年做了1591个病人”和每人3万余元手术费用计算),同时又给病人带来了无尽的痛苦。

律师的调查结果无疑戳穿了肖传国们85%治愈率的谎言:“无效率高达73%、致残 率高达39%……没有一例成功,即成功率为零。”这几个简简单单的统计数据,其实正是投向肖传国、肖传国们以及“肖氏反射弧”的原子弹。

现在,肖传国们正继续扩大害人规模:神源医院并入郑州大学第四附属医院以“收治更多的病人”,据称上海也正在建立中心。这无疑会使更多无辜病人陷入充当“小白鼠”遭受身心伤害、同时又被骗取钱财的命运。

《战争与和平》有如下一段话:“如果不道德的人们聚集在一起,可以形成一股力量的话,那么,正直的人也应该这样去做。”

面对疯狂无耻的肖传国们,面对已经受害和潜在受害的患者,我们应该怎么去做?

方舟子因揭露肖传国而遭受肖传国近10起恶意诉讼的纠缠,现在更面对肖传国“不惜用最歹毒的方式报仇”的疯狂威胁;彭剑等律师为患者调查而付出了辛勤劳动,同时又垫支了受害患者诉讼费用。

我们,作为有良知的知识分子,更作为新语丝、方舟子的支持者,所应该做的,就是团结起来,集众人之力共同捐款,以资助律师来支援那些拿起法律武器起诉肖传国们的患者。律师已经制造好《“肖氏反射弧”手术效果统计》原子弹。捐款资助,就是买架飞机把这颗原子弹运到法院上空,投向一帮谋财害人、丧尽天良的肖传国们的头上。

 



肖氏弧手术知情同意书上写的什么?

14 11 2009年

《中国新闻周刊调查》报道

在那份鉴定证书中,记者注意到,鉴定意见中还提到“这种患儿脊髓连续性并没中断,要建立人工反射弧支配膀胱必须牺牲一支正常体神经运动支及其功能,具有很大风险”。

肖氏弧鉴定证书中“具有很大风险”这一鉴定意见是首次披露。当年有所谓的“七名院士鉴定成果不留情面,肖传国‘国际领先’降为‘国际先进’”。不留情面之处,是“其原理分析尚需完善……相关学术论文也应充实”。看来是对“具有很大风险”留了很大情面。

肖传国以低劣谎言作出“解释”:

对于手术的这个隐患,肖传国的解释是“在最初的20例手术中,确实有四五个小孩出现了些问题,你是拆东墙补西墙嘛,主要是对下肢有一点点影响,感觉腿有些软。但现在,我们已经解决了,(手术)只用1/3根神经,最多1/2,一年后它就能全部恢复。这已不是个问题了。”
——这一描述与记者见到的郭资隆等患者的状况不相吻合。
“而且在手术知情同意书上,我们也是写清楚的。”肖传国补充说。

在手术知情同意书上,肖传国们写的是“我们已经解决了”、“这已不是个问题了”?是鉴定意见中的“具有很大风险”?还是律师调查到的高达39%的致残率?

肖昏们在继续扩大害人规模。

据《中国新闻周刊调查》报道:“一位知情者透露,‘郑州大学第四附属医院目前正准备申请三甲医院,神源医院的人员过去后,可以在那收治更多的病人’。”肖传国在网上宣称:“……主要中心放在上海,快啦。”(老搬 2009-10-30 23:18:35 )”

受害者们和潜在的受害者们将会感激记者对骗局的揭露,以及彭剑等律师们所付出的无偿辛勤劳动。而我们所能做的,是为“扶助学术不端受害人专项基金”贡献一份力量,以鼓励受害者们站出来,使他们能够有机会获得补偿,同时造成社会影响,使更多的患者警惕,避免上当受骗、遭受经济损失和身心痛苦。

 



中国科大自主招生“基准线”是不是专为校长侯建国的儿子设定?

17 09 2009年

中国科大2009年保送与自主招生实施方案》中早已规定自主招生的“录取原则”:“自主招生资格生分A/B/C三档,高考成绩分别达到我校在当地招生计划数1:1调档线下40/20/10分,且在当地重点控制线上,即予录取。”网友冯不二据此澄清,降40分档并非为中国科大校长侯建国的儿子临时设置,同时又提出疑问,“为何适用该档却是个迷”。其实,除了适用降40分这一档是个迷,“基准线”为何设置为650分也是个迷。

中国科大安徽招生组老师说,“经省招办批准,学校今年是以650分为基准线进行自主招生资格生的录取”,并辩解说,“自主招生资格生是提前批录取,当时还无法确切知道在普招时的实际录取分数线”。实际上,按《实施方案》“录取原则”,根本不需要知道“实际录取分数线”(据招生组老师称,扩招118人后的普招实际录取最低分为654分),因为录取原则中明确规定了“招生计划数1:1调档线”。

那么,中国科大在安徽的“招生计划数1:1调档线”到底应该是多少分?

据安徽省教育招生考试院2009年07月17日公布的《安徽省2009年普通高校招生第一批本科批次投档最低分及名次(理工)》,中国科大在安徽省的投档最低分为668分。又据安徽省教育招生考试院2009年07月15日召开的录取期间第二次新闻发布会,“部属和省外院校的投档比例原则上控制在1:1.05的范围内”。

因此,“招生计划数1:1调档线”不可能低于按1:1.05比例投档的最低分668分。另外,自主选拔录取是7月15日投档的,而这一天已经开始了普通文理科一本批次的录取,所以,1:1或1:1.05调档线当时应当基本确定。实际上,招生人员早在6月30日就已经在安徽蚌埠高招咨询会上准确报出了668分这个投档线

既然如此,招生组老师所说的自主招生“基准线”650分是怎么鼓捣出来并“经省招办批准”的?为什么不按照《实施方案》明确规定的“招生计划数1:1调档 线”或早已预测的668分投档线?是不是专门针对侯公子的高考分数611分特意设置的?侯公子是不是因此成为中国科大录取的安徽自主招生考生中分数最低者(进而也是安徽所有考生中分数最低者)?

另外,招生组老师说侯公子“获得2008年全国中学生化学竞赛二等奖”。实际上,侯公子获得的是“2008年全国高中学生化学竞赛(安徽赛区)二等奖”。按教育部2009年高考加分政策,这种省赛区二等奖根本不在加分投档之列。而真要获得了全国中学生化学竞赛二等奖,象海南一位高中毕业生那样,可以以此为保送理由直接保送北京大学。

顺便提醒一下有关人员,按《刑法》第四百一十八条,“国家机关工作人员在招收公务员、学生工作中徇私舞弊,情节严重的,处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役”。

附:安徽省教育招生考试院等网站信息

http://www.ahzsks.cn/zxdt/2009/07/11878306.htm
省教育招生考试院召开录取期间第二次新闻发布会
信息来源:安徽省教育招生考试院 发布日期:2009-07-15
7月15日下午,省教育招生考试院召开了招生录取期间第二次新闻发布会,就7月10日至15日进行的是普通文理科提前批次、艺术类第二批次、体育类第一批次的录取工作以及下一阶段录取工作安排作了通报。……按照既定工作安排,这个阶段还进行了自主招生、艺术特长生和高水平运动员等特殊类型的投档,目前学校正在进行录取。……从7月15日开始,将进入普通文理科一本批次的录取阶段。

http://www.ahzsks.cn/2009gzzc/2009/06/1313105.htm
自主选拔录取在提前批投档的最后一天单独投档录取。

http://www.bbnews.cn/jy/xwzx/2009/7/2/80863.shtml
2009-7-2 4:12:00 来源:蚌埠新闻网
蚌埠新闻网讯 6月30日上午,我市2009年高招咨询会在二中举行。各高校都报出了预测投档线……
中国科技大学 668分以上的理科考生,都可以签约预招。

 



武汉肖氏法院的荒唐裁定混淆意定之债和法定之债

13 09 2009年

意定之债,是指债的设定及其内容由当事人以自由意思决定,例如合同之债和单方允诺之债;而法定之债,是指债的设定及其内容均由法律予以规定,包括侵权行为之债。因名誉侵权而由法院判决形成的精神损害抚慰金就属于法定之债。武汉肖氏法院的荒唐裁定,其问题不在于网友rdy在《肖传国的情况不构成“善意第三人”(二)》中所言的混淆了债与非债,而是混淆了意定之债和法定之债。

《婚姻法》第十九条第三款规定:“夫妻对婚姻关系存续期间所得的财产约定归各自所有的,夫或妻一方对外所负的债务,第三人知道该约定的,以夫或妻一方所有的财产清偿。”此条法律既然有“第三人知道该约定”之说,那么,所指的债务的设定或其内容就应当与第三人是否知道该约定有直接关系,例如第三人如果不清楚交易标的物是对方个人财产或夫妻共同财产,则权益可能会受损害。换句话说,如果第三人事先知道该约定,则可按其自由意思作出决定,例如可避免债务的设定以免权益受损害。因此,此条法律所指的债务为意定之债而非法定之债。

《婚姻法》司法解释(二)第二十四条指出:“债权人就婚姻关系存续期间夫妻一方以个人名义所负债务主张权利的,应当按夫妻共同债务处理。但夫妻一方能够证明债权人与债务人明确约定为个人债务,或者能够证明属于婚姻法第十九条第三款规定情形的除外。”此条款中的“夫妻一方以个人名义所负债务”,“以个人名义”这一字眼意味着是当事人依其自由意思决定的债务,即意定之债而非法定之债。此外,此条款涉及个人债务是否“明确约定”,这也表明此条款所论及的债务属于意定之债范畴。

另外,《婚姻法》司法解释(一)第十七条第二款规定:“夫或妻非因日常生活需要对夫妻共同财产做重要处理决定,夫妻双方应当平等协商,取得一致意见。他人有理由相信其为夫妻双方共同意思表示的,另一方不得以不同意或不知道为由对抗善意第三人。”此条款所言“夫或妻……对夫妻共同财产做重要处理决定”、“他人有理由相信其为夫妻双方共同意思表示”,特别是其中的“决定”、“协商”、“意见”、“相信”、“意思”、“不同意”、“善意”等词,针对的显然是意定之债而非法定之债。

方舟子因揭露肖传国而被法院判罚精神损害抚慰金,此债务的设定及内容与肖传国是否知道方舟子夫妻财产约定毫无关系,并非可适用上述婚姻法及司法解释条款的意定之债,而是法定之债。方舟子揭露肖传国是其个人行为,整个案件从发生到审理到审结,与方太太或其个人财产丝毫无涉,最终法院判决由方舟子个人承担民事责任而非夫妻共同承担。因此,更精确地说,方舟子所被判罚的精神损害抚慰金是法律文书确定的法定之个人债务。针对法律文书确定的个人债务这一情形,可参考《最高人民法院关于变更和追加执行当事人的若干规定(征求意见稿)》第四条所明确指出的:“婚姻关系存续期间的债务,除法律文书确定其为个人债务外,推定为夫妻共同债务,可以执行夫妻共同财产。”也就是说,此债务不应“推定为夫妻共同债务,可以执行夫妻共同财产”,当然更不应执行另一方(方太太)的个人财产。