挺肖传国的人太不可思议了# WaterWorld - 未名水世界
G*s
1 楼
请问:
肖传国既然在美国拿钱,有没有在美国进行大量的临床试验?
肖传国的80%治愈率数据来自哪里?
有时间的看看这个吧
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html
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.
肖传国既然在美国拿钱,有没有在美国进行大量的临床试验?
肖传国的80%治愈率数据来自哪里?
有时间的看看这个吧
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html
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.