ARAF to check information from new ARD film on doping in Russian sportSport January 22, 22:47
All countries observe oil output cuts agreement — Russian energy ministerBusiness & Economy January 22, 16:59
Rogozin calls "dangerous incident" UK botched missile launchRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 22, 16:32
Medvedev calls United Russia ruling party, president's main resourceRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 22, 16:27
Mutko calls silly information Infantino asks him not to run for RFU headSport January 22, 16:24
Seven parties to participate in Syrian talksWorld January 22, 9:54
Russia’s Pavlyuchenkova reaches Australian Open quarterfinalsSport January 22, 7:19
IBU Executive Board finds no grouns to suspend Russia's biathlon teamSport January 21, 22:53
Russia terrified watching monuments destroyed in Palmyra — culture ministerRussian Politics & Diplomacy January 21, 17:08
LOS ANGELES, March 26, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- On March 14th 2013, The Scientist Magazine cited comments from a Nobel Assembly spokesperson, who stated Dr. Rongxiang Xu's lawsuit against them was "Frivolous." At the heart of the lawsuit, Dr. Xu is urging the Nobel Assembly to clarify whether or not the human regenerative potential is innate or must be artificially created, as stated in its announcement of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Dr. Xu filed his lawsuit against the Nobel Assembly in December, 2012.
According to a spokesperson for Dr. Xu, the assertion that the lawsuit is considered by the Assembly to be frivolous was astonishing. The suit was filed against the Nobel Assembly to clarify essential scientific details that Dr. Xu believed were misstated in their October 2012 Nobel prize announcement. Dr. Xu's intention for filing the lawsuit was not to pursue the award for himself, but rather to correct mistakes in the Nobel Assembly's statements. These errors not only discredit Dr. Xu's science, but also in his opinion, involve the health and safety of all people world-wide. The motivation for the lawsuit was therefore anything but frivolous.
Another reason for the lawsuit was that the Nobel Assembly is too powerful for a single individual to correct their misstatements without the assistance of the judicial system. In previous similar cases, Dr. Xu observed that the many scientists who had attempted to influence the decisions of the Nobel Assembly had failed, so legal action was necessary.
Dr. Xu's applied regenerative restoration science has validated time and time again that the human regenerative potential is innate. In support of this truth, Dr. Xu's recent news release disclosed graphic results of in situ regenerative restoration of severed fingers. The image shown in this release illustrates the elimination of scar tissue by the body's innate regenerative potential, a further endorsement of the natural versus artificial approach.
However, the Nobel Assembly awarded the prize to scientists who tried to create this regenerative potential artificially, which Dr. Xu believes is not only a vastly inferior approach, but also one that is potentially very dangerous. If Dr. Xu is correct, the Nobel Assembly's announcement and recent award will hinder the progress of life science research.
The Plaintiff, Dr. Xu is represented by the Ardent Law Group in California (case number 30-2012-00615804).
Tel.: +1 336 209-9276
Tel.: +1 703 683-1798