HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao’s shark skin technology

On December 9th, in phoenix.com’s CC Weekly, I posted an article entitled “Response to an outdated technology in the United States: Luo Yonghao’s shark skin technology is not reliable”, Luo Yonghao on the evening of December 10th, tweeted a response to Sharklet Shark Technology (see figure below)

wen/HMS_XIN (Harvard Medical School Fellow)

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

I mainly say the following three points:

First:

“Sharklet surfaces have a more than 95% inhibitory effect on bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant, e.g. E. coli, Clerbe pneumoniae, and Baumann.” These results are published in the following peer-reviewed papers:

1.Surface micropatternlimits s-glym

2.Micro-patterned surfacesssssreduce scar en-colonization and biofilm formation in vitro: Potential fortheend endotrache al tube designs

3. Surface micro-patterns and medical device sin

95% of the antimicrobials that Mr. Luo said at the launch were basically derived from the data…”

This paragraph is part of a section excerpt of Sharklet’s public response to me.

So, in other words, the reason why Mr. Luo blew 95% of the shark shark’s grain antibacterial at the launch was because the three papers were clearly written, “Sharklet shark-print antibacterial” compared to “ordinary smooth surface”, for all the bacteria tested, the former compared to the latter, with a minimum of 95% antibacterial capacity. There’s nothing wrong with this logic, is there?

OK, since you said your conclusion is based on these three papers, to be fair, I’ll take these three articles to hit the face of Sharklet Shark-print technology.

In addition, I say a few more words, I know that your researchers may not have stayed in school, may also study the profession has nothing to do with medicine, your academic English level may also be very poor, so, in order to fully demonstrate my good faith, I only use the conclusion of these three papers to refute you. English is worse, the conclusion (Results) part of the paper, you will not understand the wrong. After all, 1 is 1, 2 is 2, so many Arabic numbers are there. I’m not going to talk to you about the small differences in the specific experimental methods (people who have done biological experiments should know that the subtle differences in experimental steps/methods are sufficient to get very different results). I this is completely self-deprecation half of the martial arts, let you take advantage of my cheap. Goodwill!

Even so, I found that in all three articles, the antibacterial data for several types of bacteria was less than 95% of what you claimed. See the three pictures below:

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

So, what else do you want to argue with? I said your Sharklet shark wall antibacterial technology can be 95% antibacterial, is bragging, justified, there is no injustice you?

Second:

In my last tweet, very polite and kind only took Professor Brennan’s first paper out to refute you, some fans can not see past, jumped out to give me a message, see the following image:

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

Your own technology founder/cST Professor Brennan has published more than two dozen papers on Sharklet shark wall antimicrobials over the years, and you’ve just read three of his articles, and you’ve rushed past Mr. Luo to say that our Sharklet shark wall technology has a inhibitory effect of more than 95% for a single vote of bacteria… Aren’t you in the pit house, Miss Luo? Sharklet Shark-print Technology pays you, you work like this? Do not carefully read the literature, even the exact minimum antibacterial value is how much do not know, dare to casually pat the head to think of a 95%? I caught the pigtails, but also smellless face to me to list the literature, said that 95% of our published peer-reviewed papers? It’s really ignorant, fearless, and he’s so brave.

One last point:

You wrote these two words in your reply (I was really laughed out by yours, saying that your PUBLIC relations crisis management ability is not good, you do not believe it?) )

“Since the antibacterial effect of Sharklet depends in part on the surface material and the type of bacteria, 95% is only a approximate number for a laboratory test. After conducting antimicrobial testing on the surface of a product, our partner companies provide data on actual antimicrobial test results when the product is on the market. “

This paragraph is part of a section excerpt of Sharklet’s public response to me.

Why wait for your partner to provide data on the actual antibacterial test results after an antibacterial test on the surface of the product? You don’t have it yourself? Twist and pinch like this, is it necessary? You won’t take the data from your own internal antimicrobial test results, and I’ll help you out. Here’s a thank you to the sledgehammer classmates for not long brains. I can’t blame me for it. He’s the one you’ve got to promote sharklet shark-print technology, you invited him to your company, you showed him the internal data, and then this fool was released in the first minute and 20 seconds of his video… I’m not afraid of God-like opponents, you’re afraid of pig-like teammates. I am very kind many times to him, I hope he can take the initiative to delete the video (you say!) Am I very kind?! He just didn’t listen, and my kindness was treated as a donkey’s liver lung. In that case, I’ll have to teach him to be a man! Li sledgehammer classmate you ah, people gold master father do not treat you as an outsider, spend money to ask you, you so return to others? I don’t think you’ll delete it now. No delete, there are lessons to be learned. Really, believe me.

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

HMS_XIN: Second fightback on the true and false ness of Luo Yonghao's shark skin technology

So, what else do you want to quibble about now? Your own test data, knowing that it’s not 95%, can still be left with your eyes open? By I grabbed the pigtail, but also righteously reply to me? Do? Since you dare to publicly put my IQ on the ground and rub it wildly, and rub the side ball with me, you will now have to bear the consequences that come with it. After all, I’m not your dad.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the statistical difference does not mean that your Sharklet shark wall antibacterial techniques have the same clinical significance and value in medicine. For example: after careful lying your hands with Shu-Jia, you will then grab food with your hands, you will not be sick, why? Go and see what the percentage of bacteria left in your hands after washing your hands! Your technology, actually also special pick bacteria species, different bacteria, inhibition ability is not the same. Even if you take a 10,000 step back, we assume that you live in the environment there is only E. coli this kind of bacteria, your Sharklet shark wall technology that 89.1% antibacterial, who dare to touch with your hands, and then go to catch things to eat? You’re stupid, but your intelligence isn’t so flawed, are you?

Finally, or that sentence, sell things, advertise, brag, not tight. But shaking the flag of science and trying to get science to pay for your gimmicks? Well, I’m not allowed. After all, the authority and dignity of science should not be trampled on by anyone.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *