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 of the journal; there indeed exists an proceeding of the conference in the literature database, but Xiao's report disappeared.

This could not be 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 for Dr. Xiao, the Director of the Center, for his application for the membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The Academician is the most honorable title for a scholar in China to pursue. In this supporting document, it claimed that, starting from January 2006, the Center had applied the artificial somato-autonomic reflex arc technique "to 117 patients with neurogenic bladder caused by spina bifida or meningomyelocele. 60 cases were followed up for more than 8 months. The bowel and urination functions of 85% patients have returned to normal."

It is ridiculous. The Center came into existence in August 2006 and conducted its first operation on the 13th. Less than 7 months later, it signed the document for its Director saying "more than 8 months" follow-up. We note that, mistakenly dating the document cannot expailn the contradiction, as the deadline to submit the application was April 30, 2007.

Now that Dr. Xiao could fabricate an official document for the most honorable academic title in China, why could not he play the same trick in his paper in order to be published in a prestigious urology journal in Europe, and in turn to deceive the top institutions like Beaumont in the States?

Dr. Xiao failed in his application for the Academician, three times in turn every two years. Ironically, clinical trials started in the States.

The question is: could the top institutions in the States be foolish enough to be deceived and rashly start a clinical trial?

The answer is definitely YES.

"The procedure has not gained widespread acceptance outside of China," Beaumont's one year clinical report implies Xiao Procedure's widespread acceptance "inside" of China. In at least three responses to patients' inquiries, Beaumont team said explicitly:

Beaumont's saying regarding the acceptance of the procedure is absolutely a lie, whose source apparently can be tracked back to Dr. Xiao.

Xiao Procedure is NOT standard of care in China. Only Dr. Xiao and his team can do it. No major hospital except a couple of affiliated hospitals of HUST did it before mid-2006, and only one local private hospital, Shenyuan, where Dr. Xiao has 30% shares, did it between August 2006 and October 2009.

The procedure has never been widely accepted in China, either by critics, or doctors and patients. It has been questioned by Dr. Shi-Min Fang and the readers of his New Threads website since 2005. Dr. Fang hereby faced nearly 10 libel lawsuits filed by Dr. Xiao and lost one case (see: China's Fraud Buster Hit by Libel Judgments; Defenders Rally Round. Science, Dec. 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5804, pp. 1366-1367). Recently, some top experts, under the pressure of Dr. Xiao's potential legal action, finally spoke out their opposite or rather negtive comments on the procedure. Those experts include the one and only Academician in urologic surgery, directors of the departments of urology in major hospitals, and even members of the expert committee who once evaluated the procedure. In addition, the procedure has ever been infamous across Chinese internet forums where there are full of complaints against it, 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 advertisement websites, where its spam posts flood along with cures for cancer and diabetes.

Beaumont teem trust in the lie of the widespread acceptance of the procedure in China, and repeat and pass it to patients in the States. More seriously【这个词似乎不对，想不起来用那个词合适：“更（引起）严重（后果）的是”】, in at least one of their responses, they suggested the patient to go to China for the surgery, and they "have done this with other families."

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 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 teem actually already done with patients who are "desperate for help" from them?

Thanks to Beaumont's effort of spreding the lie, there were 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. We have noticed that each foreign patient is charged about 20,000 USD, whereas 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 with SCI ("were not helped by the procedure") at Beaumont, 8 children at All Children's Hospital ("may eventually involve 100 children"), as well as 6 SCI patients ("only 2 showed some improvement") in German?

On the same occasion, Dr. Peters told St. Petersburg Times: "I was wowed in China when I saw Dr. Xiao's data."

Thus, my final question is: What data did Dr. Peters really see, or in other words, on what data was Beaumont's trial based? the 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? or something like the widespread acceptance of Xiao Procedure in China?