Transcranial Magnetic-Electric Encephalopathy Therapeutic Apparatus Blazes a New Path for Physical Therapy of Encephalopathy
An Open Letter in Response to Dr. Shilihe Zhuang

Sun Zuodong
May 16, 2015

On May 16, 2015, Dr. Shilihe Zhuang published an article titled Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus: Miracle Device or Scam?, which went viral on Renren.com. Upon close reading, aside from its clickbait headline, the piece carries no malicious intent; its core purpose is to gain an in-depth understanding of the origins of the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus.

After watching the recent CCTV commercial for the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus, Dr. Zhuang wrote that he “felt a lump in his throat and needed to write something to set the record straight”. He stated: “We have no clear understanding of its pathogenesis, no reliable diagnostic tools, no effective preventive vaccines, nor viable therapeutic drugs — this is the current reality of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD).” He further noted that existing clinical medications can only alleviate AD symptoms yet fail to halt disease progression. The article concluded with a remark: “If the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus truly solves this global medical crisis as advertised, I believe Mr. Sun Zuodong fully deserves that year’s Nobel Prize.” These words reveal both his confusion over AD research directions, his disappointment with pharmaceutical treatments, and a lack of confidence in physical therapeutic approaches.

Dr. Shilihe Zhuang, a 2007 graduate of the Second Clinical Medical College, Southern Medical University, is currently a doctoral candidate in the Neuroscience Laboratory, Faculty of Life Science, Hokkaido University, Japan. During his master’s studies in Japan, his research focused on the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease, making him a qualified expert in neuroscience. I therefore took his article very seriously and felt compelled to compose this reply to resolve doubts held by scholars like Dr. Zhuang. This response contains no personal bias or self-serving motives.

Letter to Dr. Shilihe Zhuang

Dr. Zhuang wrote in his article:

According to Aobo’s official website, Sun Zuodong, born in 1966, holds the title of research fellow and doctoral supervisor for postgraduate joint training, and serves as President of Heilongjiang Eurasian Brain Science Research Institute. He has authored numerous books on brain science, including Awaken the Dormant Brain, Conquer Parkinson’s Disease, Sun Zuodong Guides You Out of Depression, and Sun Zuodong’s Brain Health Regimen. Yet this brain science expert, who has conducted in-depth research on Parkinson’s disease, depression, AD and other neurological disorders, is neither a practicing physician nor formally trained in medicine. He graduated from Harbin University of Science and Technology, and no records indicate he received any medical education at a medical school.

Response by Sun Zuodong

I was born on May 12, 1966, in Tianpu Village, Yanglin Township, Hulan District, Harbin. My father was an elementary school teacher, and my mother a homemaker; I have five siblings. I attended village primary school, township middle school and Hulan No.1 High School successively. From 1984 to 1988, I studied Mechanical Manufacturing at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Harbin Institute of Mechanical Engineering (which later merged into today’s Harbin University of Science and Technology), taking a one-year leave during my studies. All subsequent continuing education I pursued bore no relation to medicine. My initial academic credential is a college diploma, my highest a postgraduate degree, and my professional title is Research Fellow.

Dr. Zhuang’s observation that I have never received systematic medical training at a medical school is entirely accurate. My educational background creates an obvious disconnect with my current brain science research work, making Dr. Zhuang’s skepticism reasonable and expected. In truth, I have endured such doubts for over two decades and long grown accustomed to them.

My entry into brain science stemmed from coincidence, yet my subsequent achievements carry inherent inevitability. In 1990, I began self-studying medicine to treat my mother. In 1994, driven by the need to cure my father-in-law’s encephalopathy, I developed a passion for brain science and began researching transcranial electrical stimulation technology, inventing the first brain function rehabilitation therapeutic apparatus. These experiences laid the groundwork for my core patented technology — transcranial magnetic-electric encephalopathy therapy — and the subsequent development of therapeutic devices for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and depression.

My journey spans self-taught medicine, a passion for brain science, the formulation of the “Brain Cell Activation Theory”, and the publication of a book series elaborating this theory. I progressed from inventing transcranial electrical stimulation technology to developing proprietary transcranial magnetic-electric core patents; from creating the first Brain Rehabilitation Therapeutic Apparatus to rolling out a full lineup of brain health devices targeting Parkinson’s, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Twenty years ago, I spent dozens of days re-reading a single neuroscience paper without full comprehension; today I can skim dozens of academic articles within an hour. My early book Awaken the Dormant Brain, written over a decade ago based on popular science and cellular-level research, has evolved into the molecular-level hypothesis of the Brain Cell Activation Theory supported by extensive literature reviews. Twenty years of relentless effort have transformed the young man I once was into a middle-aged man streaked with gray hair, alongside my research team members who have since built families of their own. There are no shortcuts on the rugged path of scientific advancement. Without formal, systematic medical training, every minor breakthrough I achieved in brain science demanded extraordinary sacrifices beyond ordinary people’s imagination.

My life’s work can be summed up in two sentences: I established the “Brain Cell Activation Theory”, and developed a full range of brain health therapeutic devices grounded in this theory.

Though I operate outside state-run institutional systems, I abide strictly by scientific norms and legal regulations. I do not blindly follow authorities yet deeply respect preeminent scholars and mentors. My research topics stem freely from personal interest and real-world clinical demand, with an open-ended R&D framework and funding primarily sourced from my own industrial ventures. Free from pressures of academic title promotions, I lack the driving incentive to publish academic papers.

Dr. Zhuang also noted:

The Heilongjiang Eurasian Brain Science Research Institute led by Sun Zuodong is not affiliated with any university; it is merely an in-house R&D division of Aobo Medical Devices Company.

Response by Sun Zuodong

Both Harbin Aobo Medical Devices Co., Ltd. and Heilongjiang Eurasian Brain Science Research Institute were founded entirely by myself. Researchers hold cross-appointments across both entities and share research outcomes, with a clear division of labor: the Brain Science Research Institute focuses on fundamental brain science research and new brain health device development, while the company translates lab discoveries into commercial medical products.

Founded in 1996, Aobo Medical Devices has grown into a leading specialized enterprise in China’s brain health sector, recognized as a National High-Tech Enterprise. It hosts a National Postdoctoral Research Workstation, ranks among Heilongjiang’s first batch of postdoctoral innovation and entrepreneurship practice bases, and operates the Heilongjiang Encephalopathy Rehabilitation Equipment Engineering Technology Center and Harbin Municipal Key Encephalopathy Rehabilitation Equipment Technology Center. The company also serves as Vice Chairman Unit of the Heilongjiang Pharmaceutical Industry Association.

Established in 2001, the Brain Science Research Institute holds independent legal person status and functions as the proprietary research arm of Aobo Medical Devices. Its core research covers neuromodulation of neurotransmitters, neuron activation, nervous system repair, and neural functional information systems.

The innovation core team comprises 12 key members, including 1 national-level talent under the National New Century Hundred-Thousand-Ten Thousand Talents Project, 2 recipients of Special Government Allowances from the State Council, and 2 distinguished young experts of Heilongjiang Province. Three team members have won the First Class Heilongjiang Provincial Science and Technology Invention Award, and over ten have received municipal or higher-level science and technology awards. The institute has undertaken and completed more than 30 national, provincial and municipal research projects.

Privately-operated research institutions enjoy greater operational flexibility compared to state-run academies, often developing research projects more closely aligned with clinical practice and market needs — a model actively encouraged and supported by national policy. In Heilongjiang Province, private research institutes face no institutional discrimination; our research team receives identical treatment as state-run counterparts in government awards and research funding. Just days prior to writing this letter, our project titled Basic and Clinical Research on Epilepsy Therapeutic Apparatus was included in Heilongjiang’s Major Science and Technology Research Program.

Dr. Zhuang raised another critical point:

The therapeutic mechanism of the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus is based on the self-conceived “Brain Cell Activation Theory” proposed by Sun Zuodong. I have never encountered this theory in domestic or international medical textbooks, indicating it has yet to gain recognition from mainstream medical academia. Admittedly, a theory may carry profound insights even if its name remains unrecognized by the field.

Response by Sun Zuodong

The Brain Cell Activation Theory is a novel framework explaining how transcranial magnetic-electric stimulation effectively treats Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, alternatively framed as the optimal target hypothesis for physical activation of voltage-gated calcium channels. Its core tenets read as follows: Neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s are closely linked to physically gated ion channels, which can be modulated via physical therapeutic interventions. Activating neurotransmitter-releasing neurons constitutes the core therapeutic mechanism, with voltage-gated calcium channels serving as the optimal physical stimulation target. Physical modulation induces calcium influx, triggering synaptic vesicle release of neurotransmitters at neuronal axon terminals.

As early as the 1990s, I put forward the core viewpoint that “activating brain cells is the key to treating intractable encephalopathies”. The Brain Cell Activation Theory represents a refined, expanded molecular-level iteration of this original proposition.

The journey from a scientific hypothesis to universally recognized theory is protracted. A concept accepted immediately by peer scientists often carries limited scientific weight or transformative significance. A hypothesis that sparks widespread academic debate requires time to mature — much like shouting into an empty valley, where echoes do not return instantly. In fact, following the commercial launch of my brain science technologies and the formal publication of the Brain Cell Activation Theory, global research communities have begun to take notice, shifting their attitudes toward this framework. Light, sound, electricity, magnetism, force and heat all fall under physical therapeutic modalities; transcranial electrical/magnetic-electric stimulation, optogenetics, ultrasound and other physical intervention tools have attracted intense attention from scientists worldwide. In the coming years, multiple Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine will likely emerge from this field. We stand at the cusp of a grand “physical revolution in brain science”, regardless of whether the Brain Cell Activation Theory is ultimately validated or refuted by future research.

Dr. Zhuang commented on the fragmented understanding of AD pathogenesis:

To this day, the exact root cause of AD remains unknown; researchers only hold several competing pathogenetic hypotheses, including the cholinergic hypothesis, amyloid-beta hypothesis, tau protein hypothesis and inflammatory hypothesis. Neuroscientists and clinicians worldwide have failed to confirm a single definitive mechanism, with countless conflicting research findings complicating consensus.

Response by Sun Zuodong

It is true that multiple competing hypotheses exist to explain AD’s origins. The divergent perspectives of varied hypotheses and the unifying explanatory power of validated theories form a dialectical relationship: definitive consensus often emerges from broad exploratory debate, while diverse hypotheses lay the groundwork for targeted, conclusive research. Precisely because AD’s pathogenesis remains unresolved, numerous competing frameworks exist — creating room for the Brain Cell Activation Theory hypothesis to contribute new perspectives.

On July 3, 2014, Professor Yigong Shi’s research group at Tsinghua University published a landmark study in Nature, revealing the high-resolution three-dimensional structure of human γ-secretase complex for the first time. This breakthrough was hailed as identifying the “culprit” behind Alzheimer’s disease, built entirely upon the amyloid-beta hypothesis. Prior research established a link between AD onset and cerebral amyloid plaque formation: plaques form when the membrane protease γ-secretase abnormally cleaves amyloid precursor protein (APP), generating excess aggregable Aβ42 peptides. Earlier studies had only resolved the enzyme structure to a 12-angstrom resolution, while Shi’s team refined it to 4.5 angstroms. Professor Shi described this as “the most transformative breakthrough of my career, surpassing all prior research achievements combined.”

However, a 2014 year-end review of Alzheimer’s research published in The Lancet noted: “No highly effective drugs for AD have yet been discovered. Two Phase III clinical trials of anti-amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies failed to demonstrate significant improvements in primary cognitive or functional endpoints.” This forces the research community to re-evaluate Aβ as a viable therapeutic target and question whether amyloid-beta truly acts as the primary pathogenic agent in AD.

A 2013 study from Stanford University School of Medicine further challenged the amyloid-beta paradigm. Published April 3 in Science Translational Medicine, the paper reported that fibrils formed by fragments of amyloid-forming proteins (including tau and prion proteins) rapidly alleviate neurodegenerative symptoms in mice under certain conditions. The study’s corresponding author, Professor Lawrence Steinman (a leading expert in multiple sclerosis), stated: “The longstanding assumption that amyloid proteins are toxic must be revised. Understanding this paradigm shift forms the foundation for research into multiple sclerosis, AD, Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative disorders.”

Brief biography of Professor Yigong Shi: Former Assistant President of Tsinghua University, Dean of the School of Life Sciences, Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He previously served as tenured Professor at Princeton University and received the International Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences. His core research focuses on molecular mechanisms of apoptosis and cancer development.

Dr. Zhuang raised a detailed electrophysiology question:

The brain synthesizes dozens of distinct neurotransmitters; pharmaceutical interventions typically modulate release of only one specific neurotransmitter. Yet voltage-gated calcium channels exist across nearly all neurons. I cannot identify how the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus overcomes this challenge to selectively “stimulate and restore acetylcholine secretion in deep cerebral cholinergic neurons”, as advertised, without activating neurons that produce other neurotransmitters.

Response by Sun Zuodong

This is a highly specialized technical question requiring granular clarification.

First, Dr. Zhuang’s statement contains an internal logical contradiction: the claim that “drugs alone modulate single neurotransmitter release” conflicts with the subsequent observation that “voltage-gated calcium channels exist across all neurons”. The “voltage” governing these channels carries inherent physical properties, which I formally define as “physically gated” within the Brain Cell Activation Theory — a term contrasting against “chemically gated” channels modulated by pharmaceutical agents, absent from all pre-existing academic literature. Dr. Zhuang previously wrote: “Neurodegenerative diseases and physically gated ion channel disorders are two separate categories with no hierarchical relationship.” This statement requires correction: while neurodegenerative diseases and ion channel disorders are independently documented concepts, the umbrella term “physically gated ion channel disorders” was first introduced to mainstream media alongside the launch of the world’s first Alzheimer’s therapeutic apparatus, with its definition and hierarchical classification formally established in my peer-reviewed published papers.

Second, voltage-gated calcium channels are categorized into six subtypes (L, N, P, Q, R, T) distinguished by divergent activation potentials. For example, L-type calcium channels activate at −10 mV, while T-type channels activate at −70 mV. Calcium channel opening probability rises sharply once membrane potential approaches −40 mV. Voltage-gated calcium channels represent the primary, but not exclusive, target of transcranial magnetic-electric stimulation.

Third, calcium influx does not trigger uncontrolled neurotransmitter release, even under intense external physical stimulation. The fusion rate of synaptic vesicles lacks a linear correlation with intracellular free calcium concentration; this non-linear relationship renders vesicle fusion extremely sensitive to narrow fluctuations in calcium concentration over brief time windows. Endogenous neurotransmitter regeneration — including vesicle loading, transport and membrane anchoring — requires finite biological time. During rapid exocytosis, releasable vesicles become depleted, with release rates decaying exponentially over time. Neurotransmitters secreted into the synaptic cleft also follow homeostatic regulatory mechanisms: homeostasis does not signify static balance, but stable equilibrium maintained via rhythmic neuronal activity.

Finally, brain tissue physiology remains immensely complex, far beyond full comprehension by any single researcher and demanding global collaborative effort among neuroscientists. I fully acknowledge that this novel theoretical framework requires more definitive empirical validation. Intracellular recording and patch-clamp techniques inevitably damage isolated neurons, distorting their native physiological state. Research into direct real-time monitoring of individual living neurons during transcranial magnetic-electric stimulation is currently underway, such as a U.S.-funded project developing diamond-coated electrodes to detect dopamine in intact living brains.

Dr. Zhuang commented on publicly available research outputs from the institute:

A search through the Wanfang academic database reveals the most prominent publication linked to the Eurasian Brain Science Research Institute is an article titled Five Habits Middle-Aged Adults Must Avoid published in the popular health magazine Family Healthcare. The institute should publicly disclose its full body of research outcomes for transparency.

Response by Sun Zuodong

I have formally published only two peer-reviewed academic papers focused on brain science over my career: A 1998 clinical research paper on brain function rehabilitation therapeutic devices, with Professor Mingde Jiao of Harbin Medical University as first author. A paper elaborating the Brain Cell Activation Theory, published exclusively on the China Online Science and Technology Papers platform in 2015.

The article Five Habits Middle-Aged Adults Must Avoid featured in Family Healthcare originated from my personal blog; I was never informed which third party submitted the manuscript to the magazine on my behalf.

The Brain Cell Activation Theory and its companion book series constitute my theoretical research outputs, while the full lineup of brain health therapeutic devices developed from this framework represent translational medical research achievements. The development and clinical application of transcranial magnetic-electric encephalopathy therapy was designated a Major Heilongjiang Biological Industry Restructuring Project and awarded the 2013 First Class Heilongjiang Provincial Science and Technology Invention Award. This research program has generated a complete “4–2–9” product portfolio: 4 Class II National Medical Device Registration Certificates; 2 core product categories: portable household compact units and hospital-grade large therapeutic systems; 9 distinct device models total.

Breakdown of approved commercial products:

Aobo Brain Function Rehabilitation Therapeutic Apparatus (Transcranial Electrical Encephalopathy Therapeutic Apparatus) Granted Class II medical device registration certification on December 4, 1995 — the world’s first device applying transcranial electrical stimulation to treat severe encephalopathies including stroke sequelae, vascular dementia and cerebral atrophy. Listed as a National Torch Program Project, recipient of the China Invention Exhibition Gold Medal and the Lepine Medal at the Paris International Invention Fair. Two outdated media reports Dr. Zhuang referenced, dated 2004 and 2008, document false promotional claims made by unauthorized regional distributors long terminated by our company, which prompted the publication of a formal industry self-regulation statement on Aobo’s official homepage. This flagship device remains trusted nationwide by stroke hemiplegia patients and holds the title of Heilongjiang Famous Brand Product.

Aobo Depression Therapeutic Apparatus Registered as a Class II medical device on January 31, 2011. Its development established a non-pharmaceutical treatment pathway for depression, designated a National Torch Program Industrialization Demonstration Project and National Key New Product Program, winning the First Class Heilongjiang Excellent New Product Award.

Aobo Parkinson’s Therapeutic Apparatus Registered simultaneously with the depression device on January 31, 2011. It breaks global reliance on pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for Parkinson’s disease, nicknamed an “external brain pacemaker” for mild-to-moderate cases. Supported by Heilongjiang Major Science and Technology Research Program, it received the China Industry-University-Research Cooperation Innovation Achievement Award.

Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus Granted Class II medical device registration certification on April 17, 2014. It pioneered a physical intervention for Alzheimer’s disease, addressing the unmet clinical need for treatments capable of slowing disease progression, indicated for mild-to-moderate dementia and backed by Heilongjiang Major Science and Technology Research Program funding.

All completed research projects underwent clinical trials at Grade A Tertiary Hospitals and CFDA-certified national pharmaceutical clinical research bases, with all technologies passing official Heilongjiang Provincial Science and Technology Appraisal. Every appraisal concluded the technology “fills global market gaps and reaches internationally leading technical standards.”

Eight additional products remain under development, including therapeutic devices for epilepsy, pediatric cerebral palsy and a minimally conscious state arousal system. In June 2014, Aobo signed a formal research cooperation agreement with the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University for the Basic and Clinical Research on Epilepsy Therapeutic Apparatus project.

Dr. Zhuang summarized decades of pharmaceutical AD research failures:

Between 1998 and 2011, major global pharmaceutical corporations and universities invested massive capital to advance 104 AD drug candidates into clinical trials. 101 candidates failed completely, and the three approved medications deliver no curative effect, only temporary symptom relief with no capacity to slow disease progression.

Response by Sun Zuodong

Leading neurology experts hold divergent evaluations of existing AD pharmaceuticals. In an article titled Defeat the Universal Public Enemy — Alzheimer’s Disease, published March 19, 2015 in China Medical Tribune, Professor Jianping Jia of Capital Medical University offered conclusions differing from Dr. Zhuang’s assessment.

Professor Jia’s research team demonstrated that acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) form the backbone of mainstream AD treatment worldwide, paired synergistically with memantine (an NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist); combined regimens deliver superior outcomes for moderate-to-severe AD patients. AChEIs and memantine remain first-line standard-of-care AD therapeutics.

By contrast, Dr. Baoquan Min, another neurologist at Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, expressed contradictory views in a July 3, 2014 media interview: “No truly effective curative treatment for Alzheimer’s exists anywhere in China or globally. Clinicians can only deliver symptomatic management — memory supplements for cognitive decline, sleep aids for insomnia, with no drug targeting the core disease mechanism directly. While partial AD pathogenetic pathways have been characterized, pharmaceutical development has yielded no transformative clinical breakthroughs.”

Brief biography of Professor Jianping Jia: Chair of the Department of Neurology, Capital Medical University; Chief Physician and Director of the Neurology Department, Xuanwu Hospital. A graduate of Australian and New Zealand medical training programs, he holds a Commonwealth medical license and associate professorship qualification. He serves as Chairman of the Neurology Physicians Branch, Chinese Medical Doctor Association, Chair of the Chinese Alzheimer’s Disease Association, and Chairman of the Neurology Branch, Chinese Medical Association. Over the past five years, he has published more than 150 papers in top domestic neurology journals and over 30 in internationally peer-reviewed publications, specializing in cerebrovascular disease and dementia research.

Dr. Zhuang put forward a critical market analysis:

AD’s soaring prevalence has created a massive healthcare market. Widespread clinical failure of AD pharmaceuticals has driven numerous medical device manufacturers to compete for market share by developing alternative therapeutic equipment.

Response by Sun Zuodong

This observation reveals Dr. Zhuang’s inherent skepticism toward physical AD therapies.

Innovation often blazes new trails where pharmaceutical and surgical interventions reach their limits. Physical therapeutic modalities achieve clinical outcomes unobtainable via drugs or invasive surgery — dismissing physical intervention means abandoning a viable treatment pathway, particularly for disorders of the central nervous system.

Neurodegenerative disorders are tightly linked to physically gated ion channel dysfunction. Per the Brain Cell Activation Theory, therapeutic devices for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease deliver a complementary physical treatment modality. Concurrent administration of exogenous neurotransmitter pharmaceuticals (such as levodopa for Parkinson’s) generates severe adverse reactions and counteracts the therapeutic effects of magnetic-electric stimulation devices.

Dr. Zhuang closed with a transparency request:

I do not question Aobo’s patents or industry awards, yet request full public disclosure of complete clinical efficacy reports: specifically, which hospitals conducted trials for the Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus, in which peer-reviewed medical journals the trial data was published, and what standards of peer review the research underwent for patient and clinician transparency.

Response by Sun Zuodong

The multi-center randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial for the Transcranial Magnetic-Electric Encephalopathy Therapeutic Apparatus (commercial name: Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus) was led by the Second Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, with the First Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine as a participating trial site — both Grade A Tertiary Hospitals and state-certified pharmaceutical clinical research bases. Statistical analysis of trial data was completed by the School of Public Health, Harbin Medical University.

The clinical trial protocol was finalized in December 2011, trial recruitment and follow-up concluded in January 2014, and the device obtained Class II medical device registration certification in April 2014. In May of the same year, the project passed final acceptance under Heilongjiang’s Twelfth Five-Year Major Science and Technology Research Program and provincial technical appraisal. The official appraisal report concluded:

The Transcranial Magnetic-Electric Encephalopathy Therapeutic Apparatus delivers safe, effective intervention for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia, improves overall cerebral function, and generates measurable benefits for patient mental status, cognitive performance and activities of daily living. This technology fills global technical gaps and attains internationally leading performance standards.

Our research team has not published full clinical trial data in specialized medical journals for four core reasons:

1.Medical device registration and government research project approval carry no mandatory requirements for prior academic paper publication;

2.The R&D team has no internal incentive to split complete research findings into fragmented journal manuscripts;

3.Full technical trial data contains proprietary corporate trade secrets requiring protection;

4.This original, systematically integrated large-scale translational research program risks dilution of its core innovation if split into disjointed short-form journal articles.

We intend to publish our full suite of brain science research findings in formal peer-reviewed papers at an appropriate future date. Every medical device development cycle requires a minimum of 5–10 years from conceptualization through clinical validation to commercialization, complying rigorously with national medical device regulatory laws. Every developmental stage undergoes mandatory expert peer evaluation as a precondition for progression — a far more rigorous and comprehensive review process than the 2–3 anonymous peer reviewers evaluating standard academic journal submissions. Many laboratory-based academics over-simplify scientific achievement by equating peer-reviewed papers with complete translational research outcomes. Most isolated lab experimental results cannot be classified as fully realized medical research achievements; the arduous process of bench-to-bedside translational medicine can only be fully understood by practitioners who have navigated the entire pipeline firsthand.

Concluding Remarks

Leaving the laboratory and university campus reveals the broader landscape of applied medical science.

Dr. Zhuang’s commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry deserves full recognition and encouragement. The Aobo Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Apparatus is neither a miraculous panacea nor fraudulent deception — it represents a legitimate physical intervention modality for Alzheimer’s disease. Brain science is widely regarded as humanity’s final frontier of scientific discovery, hailed by developed nations as the “jewel in the crown” of cutting-edge research. Dr. Zhuang is fortunate to receive comprehensive formal neuroscience training domestically and internationally. As a fellow researcher, I sincerely hope to collaborate with more scholars like Dr. Zhuang to advance Chinese neuroscience research and win global recognition for our country.

Furthermore, Dr. Zhuang’s critical inquiry forced me to systematically re-examine the current state and future trajectory of brain science research, inspiring my companion essay The World Stands on the Eve of a Physical Revolution in Brain Science — for which I extend my sincere gratitude.