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

The proceeding of THIS conference listing all abstracts can be searched in the literature database. However, Xiao's report was purposely left out.

>>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 Neuro-Urologic Surgery

>>for his application for the membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

for his bid to become a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

>>The Academician is the most honorable title for a scholar in China to pursue.

The Academician is the most prestigious (and honorable) title for a scholar in China to pursue.

>>It is ridiculous. The Center came into existence in August 2006 and conducted its first operation on the 13th.

What claimed in the supporting document are anything but truth. The Center did not come into existence till 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.

Ridiculously, in less than 7 months following the first operation, the center produced a supporting document for its OWN Director stating they have conducted "more than 8 months" follow-ups on 60 patients.

>>We note that, mistakenly dating the document cannot expailn the contradiction, as the deadline to submit the application was April 30, 2007.

This ridiculousness could not have occurred due to mistakenly dating the document because the deadline for submitting his application package containing this supporting document to ACS was April 30, 2007 as required by ACS.

>>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?

Given Dr. Xiao's lack of credibility as evidenced by the abovementioned ACS incident, it is highly likely that he has also manipulated data in his published papers.

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

Due to amounting skepticism over Xiao's procedure and its clinical outcome among Academicians and scientists in China, Dr. Xiao lost his bid for ACS membership three times. Despite that, clinical trials was initiated 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 question is: could top institutions in the States be foolish enough to be deceived and started a clinical trial based on fabricated story?

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

Beaumont's statement on the 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.

Xiao Procedure is anything but standard of care in China. First, Dr. Xiao and his team is the only group known to be able to perform this procedure; second, no large institutes except a couple of affiliated hospitals of HUST did it before mid-2006, and only one local private hospital, Shenyuan, where Dr. Xiao owns 30% of its 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.

The procedure has never been performed by surgeons in China other than Xiao's team, let alone being widely accepted in China, either by critics, doctors or patients.

>>It has been questioned by Dr. Shi-Min Fang and the readers of his New Threads website since 2005.

It has been questioned by Dr. Shi-Min Fang and the readers, many of whom are scientists and doctors, of his New Threads website since 2005.

>>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.

Recently, some top experts, in defiance of Dr. Xiao's potential legal action, finally expressed their concern over the lack of scientific basis of Xiao procedure and unethical practice of this questionable procedure by Xiao and for-profit hospitals without adequate and proper clinical trials.

>>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.

Those experts include the one and only Academician who is a urologist, directors from departments of urology in major hospitals, and even members of the expert committee who once evaluated this 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.

In addition, the procedure has long been infamous across Chinese internet forums where there are full of complaints from patients who received this procedure or their family members. To make things worse, no single success case can be found from patients' posts. The only places where the procedure receives positive comments are the more than 50 (by the end of 2007) online advertisement websites, where spamming 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."

Beaumont teem took the lie-filled story of widespread acceptance of the procedure in China as truth without exercising necessary professional judgment and scientific scrutiny, and further propagated this lie in the United States. What is more, in at least one of their responses, they advised patients to go to China for the surgery, and told them they "have done this with other families."

>>Thanks to Beaumont's effort of spreding the lie,

Thanks to Beaumont's effort of SPREADING the lie,