Alcor vs. Johnson Update

There's some sort of hearing, today, in the Alcor vs. Johnson case, in New York. I am not an attorney, but it appears Alcor is attempting to amend their case to add defamation claims, and to "domesticate the Arizona Judgment pursuant to Order of this Court dated December 11, 2009." I fall asleep reading legal documents, but I believe the Arizona judgment relates to some sort of prior negotiation of an agreement, between Johnson and Alcor.

It seems Johnson and Alcor negotiated an agreement that they would pay him to keep his mouth shut, a long time ago, but he never signed the typed document, or cashed the check. In Alcor's favor, it appears Johnson did sign a handwritten document, though I'm not sure how binding that is. I think the Arizona judge recently ruled that the agreement stands, but Johnson is appealing that decision. (I haven't even tried to find the Arizona court documents, lately, but some were included with the NY documents, and I breezed through them, a while back.)

I am amused by some of the statements, in Alcor's filings, such as "Alcor is a pioneer in medical research..." I wonder how many medical research scientists would agree with that. My guess is, not many other than those being paid by LEF. Personally, I think they are a joke, and their so-called surgeries have been a mockery of modern hypothermic medicine.

Alcor's attorneys seem to be attempting to persuade the judge that most of what goes on at Alcor is "highly confidential, trade secrets and proprietary...," but I disagree with that. They appear to have published most of their insanity, over the years. They go on, at length, about Johnson signing the Employee Handbook, which they claim was some sort of confidentiality agreement, but, as I recall, Johnson's attorneys maintain that the handbook clearly states it does not constitute any sort of binding legal agreement.

The portion of Alcor's argument that really discredits them, in my eyes, is the part where they put forth that Johnson signed an NDA, that it was kept in his office, and that he stole it when he left, based upon an affidavit from Charles Platt. The exact same lies were told about me, (by the same person), when I left SA. I never signed an NDA, and my employee file, (which I never had access to), was certainly not kept in my office. The same thing is probably true, regarding the illusory (non-existent) Johnson NDA.

Alcor lists 32 specific statements from the book which they say are false, but I think some of those statements can be traced back to Johnson's taped conversations with Alcor's personnel, (Platt, Hixon, Hovey, etc.) If Alcor now maintains statements made by their personnel were false, how was Johnson to know that? Who is actually responsible for the alleged "lies"? I think Alcor makes a few good points, but it might behoove them to leave out the fiction, and quit holding Johnson responsible for stories told by their own personnel.

Alcor has now asked for a jury trial, (something Johnson did, a while back). That should be extremely interesting, should it ever happen. Personally, I think Alcor would have a very difficult time proving their "trade secret" arguments, or holding Mr. Johnson responsible for statements their own employees made, in taped conversations. They may "win," based on the handwritten agreement, but what will it cost them?

So far, all Alcor has accomplished has been to get the judge to prevent Johnson from discussing anything that was not in the book. We'll see what happens, today.

Melody Maxim

Brian Wowk's Affidavit (Alcor vs. Johnson)

I'm wondering why Brian Wowk was selected, to submit an affidavit in the Alcor vs. Johnson case. Was it because he has a lot of letters after his name? When Johnson was working at Alcor, in Arizona, I believe Dr. Wowk was working at a facility in California. How many hours did he spend shadowing Johnson, at Alcor, that would allow him to have firsthand knowledge as to what Johnson had access to, or is his information actually secondhand? (This reminds me of Dr. Wowk's colleague, Steve Harris, writing about my activities at Suspended Animation, in Florida, when he was in California and didn't have a clue as to what went on at SA, while I was there.) I believe at least two people who DID work with Johnson, at Alcor, are still working there. Why didn't THEY submit affidavits?

I have some questions and comments, regarding Dr. Wowk's affidavit, excerpts of which are quoted in italics, below

"I can state based on personal knowledge that Alcor Life Extension Foundation maintains trade secrets, many of which were observed by, or accessible to Larry Johnson during his employ."

How does Dr. Wowk know what was observed by, or accessible to, Larry Johnson, at Alcor? Again, I ask, how many hours did he spend with Mr. Johnson, at Alcor? As far as I can tell, Larry Johnson hasn't published any "trade secrets" belonging to Alcor. Wowk mentions the formulas, but Johnson has publicly stated he doesn't know what is in Alcor's formulas. If I'm not mistaken, the M22 formula wasn't completed until after Johnson resigned.

Dr. Wowk mentions perfusion equipment, including pumps, cannulae and sensors, none of which could be considered as "trade secrets." He also mentions surgical techniques, but there is nothing "secret" about the way vascular cannulations are performed. Maybe he's referring to chopping off heads with ball peen hammers and chisels.

I doubt vendor information, or pending and negotiated contracts, from six years ago, are of any significance.

"There are competitiors in the field of cryonics."

Really? Other than CI? Didn't the president of CI recently visit Alcor? Does Johnson know anything that goes on, at Alcor, which CI is unaware of, that would give CI an edge if they knew?

Dr. Wowk mentions "progressive training" and "reputation." According to what I have heard, regarding their surgical procedures, that must be a damn slow rate of progression, and I believe their reputation has always been questionable, to say the least.

Dr. Wowk mentions protecting the identity of professionals, who may want to remain anonymous. I don't think Johnson has mentioned anyone who wasn't already known to be associated with cryonics. Perhaps Dr. Wowk should take up this issue with some of his peers. His colleague, Steve Harris, once published the name of a surgeon I recruited to help Suspended Animation, without the surgeon's permission, on the Cold Filter Forum, no less. (Thankfully, the moderator removed it.) Suspended Animation, a company that won't publish the name of its own staff members, didn't hesitate to publish the name of a perfusion group they were working with, (without permission, according to a leader of the perfusion group).

"Like any other company, all Alcor financial information is confidential to Alcor, except for disclosures required by law or at the sole discretion of Alcor."

This seems inaccurate, to me. As a non-profit organization, I believe Alcor's finances are mostly open to public scrutiny.

"There is a significant amount of tangible and intangible harm to Alcor which would continue unless Mr. Johnson is enjoined from the dissemination of confidential information and trade secrets of Alcor."

In my opinion, nothing Mr. Johnson has disseminated even remotely resembles a trade secret. As for Alcor's "confidential information," I believe a lot of that includes information I believe should be brought to light.

As for the memory of Ted Williams, if any party has desecrated that, it has been Alcor, in my opinion. Alcor has attempted to claim that Mr. Johnson's actions have upset the Williams family, but Alcor retracted that claim, when one member of the Williams family pointed out that they were speaking for only ONE member of the Williams family, (one of the two who had him cryopreserved, against the wishes of other family members, I believe). I am acquainted with one member of the Williams family, and I believe he is thankful Mr. Johnson brought to light the sloppy way his relative was cared for.

Dr. Wowk mentions "false allegations" in the book. Which allegations can Dr. Wowk prove false? If information in Johnson's book is false, I suggest Dr. Wowk take that up with the Alcor staff members and former staff members making these allegations, on Johnson's audiotapes.

Dr. Wowk accuses Johnson of leading people to believe Alcor's cryopreserved members "are not treated and preserved using state of the art care."

The two (related) medical procedures required to deliver cryonics solutions are vascular cannulations and perfusion. There is no way in hell, Dr. Wowk can convince me that Alcor has been consistently delivering these two well-established procedures with anything remotely resembling "state-of-the-art" quality. Alcor has frequently allowed laymen, with no relevant education or proper training, to attempt to perform these procedures on Alcor's members. There are frequent reports of botched cannulations, massive air embolization and inappropriate perfusion pressures. Then, there's the issue of people with very little, (if any), medical education, and no proper surgical training, (laymen), being allowed to perfom decapitations, as evidenced by the appalling Ted Williams case report.

The public has a right to know the truth, in regard to cryonics care providers. These people are being promoted as "professionals" capable of performing "state of the art" cutting-edge medical procedures, when I believe the truth is, a large number of these "professionals" are uneducated, unskilled persons who can't deliver femoral cannulations and perfusion at the "state of the art" level, which existed 30 years ago. And, they want people to pay $80K - 150K for their mostly uneducated, unskilled care providers. In my opinion, THAT is the "trade secret" Alcor doesn't want to get out.

Was Harris' Defense of the Use of Propofol Convincing?

Recently, Steve Harris made a brief appearance on Cold Filter, where he played nice, (for a change), apologized to me for his past transgressions, and defended some cryonics practices I have questioned.

One of his defenses was related to the use of propofol, in cryonics. Basically, his argument consisted of one journal article, out of India, regarding CPR consciousness. I don't think that's enough to justify allowing, basically, anyone off the street to transport, administer, or have free access to, a drug such as propofol. The "RUP's" at Suspended Animation and Alcor have no business playing with this medication, and I believe the use of this drug, by unqualified personnel, puts the cryonics organizations at risk of being accused of murder, again, in the future.

I've witnessed many codes, during my education and my nine years working in heart surgery, and I don't recall a patient ever telling me they remember being aware of CPR efforts. None of my co-workers ever mentioned anyone being "awake" during CPR efforts, and I'm sure that's something that would have been mentioned. I've known a few people who have "died," but been revived, and they were totally unaware of the efforts that saved them. This past week, I asked two experienced paramedics about this issue. One has over 15 years of experience, and the other about 30 years of experience. Neither one of them thought this was an issue. As one of them said, "The only patients I've ever had, who claimed to be aware of anything during CPR, claimed to have had some sort of out-of-body experience."

Keep in mind, the patients receiving CPR in conventional medicine, unlike cryonics patients, have not been declared "legally dead," meaning the efforts are being applied in the hopes of immediately reviving them. No one has given up hope for THIS lifetime, yet, unlike they have, with cryonics patients. Since any cryonics patient with a propofol-armed standby team, nearby, has been in the process of dying, prior to the arrival of any such team, they are likely to be already heavily sedated. In addition, they've most likely been "dead" for several minutes before the cryonics team begins their efforts. Taking into consideration these factors, and others, cronics patients are much less likely to regain awareness, than patients in conventional medicine scenarios.

Essentially, Harris has merely made the "keep them down" cryonics argument, which in my opinion, is nothing more than the "we're so good, we might actually revive someone" propaganda. Personally, I give the RUP's virtually a zero-percent chance of reviving any of their clients, and think the propofol is just one more ruse designed to fool the public, (and, possibly, themselves), into thinking they are "medical professionals." As already pointed out, in addition to it probably being unnecessary, it adds to the possibility of cryonics care providers being accused of hastening the deaths of their clients.

I don't think Harris has made a convincing argument, for allowing people of questionable intelligence and ethics to be allowed to "play doctor" with medications such as propofol.

***Note: There could be an argument that propofol may provide cerebral protection, but I doubt many people working in cryonics understand this topic well enough to even discuss it. So far, I can only recall ONE person associated with cryonics ever mentioning this. Instead, cryonics documents indicate the drug is used to "maintain unconsciousness," and unqualified care providers go around spouting phrases like, "It's used to put them down and keep them down."

Melody Maxim - Cryonics Meets Medicine

Johnson Asks for Jury Trial in New York Case

I believe there may be court rulings, in both Arizona and New York, tomorrow, in the Alcor vs. Johnson cases. I am not an attorney, and I can't even pretend to be able to predict how the courts will rule, but I don't think Alcor has made their case, from a common sense point of view. They keep rambling on about "trade secrets," but I think their greatest "trade secret" has probably been that they have been sending just about anyone off the street to perform femoral cannulations and perfusion, and charging $80K-150K for it. There's nothing "state of the art," about their performance of these well-established medical procedures, as far as I can tell. Personally, I think almost anyone, (especially a judge!) should be able to see that the most likely scenario is that Alcor is not afraid of Johnson providing trade secrets to their virtually non-existent competition, but is extremely concerned with people knowing just how disgustingly incompetent and amateurish their patient care has been, for the most part.

Johnson hasn't worked there for six years. He hasn't revealed any "trade secrets," as far as I can tell, so I would guess he's very unlikely to do so, in the future. In addition, Alcor publishes almost anything, and everything, about their activities, on the Internet. If I were the judge, I would tell them to quit wasting my time, and order them to reimburse Mr. Johnson for his legal expenses.

Johnson's attorneys arguments seem sharp, and to the point. In my opinion, Alcor's arguments seem vague and confusing, and sprinkled with rhetorical insults. They rely on things like an affidavit from Platt, which seems to indicate Johnson stole an NDA from his file. Most people familiar with that situation knows there is about a 99.9999% chance that was a blatant lie. I think I'll limit my comments on Wowk's affidavit, by saying his remarks about Johnson and "trade secrets" seem just as lame as the rest of Alcor's remarks on this topic. Was he even working at the Alcor facility, when Johnson was there, or was he at the 21CM facility, in California? My guess is, he was probably just "doing his job," as a member of the Kent Clan, in producing the affidavit.

I'm wondering if Alcor has been intentionally delaying this case, hoping Johnson would run out of money. It will be interesting to see what happens, tomorrow. If the NY judge doesn't throw it out, Johnson's attorneys have filed a request for a jury trial. There's nothing like airing everyone's dirty laundry, in public. I'm sure Johnson has his flaws, (just as all of us), but I'm guessing Alcor's laundry has a lot more stains, than his.

The New York court documents can be read by going to:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain
Search for Index Number 113938/2009, and click on "eFiled Documents" at the bottom of the case page.

Don't Drink the Kool-Aid

**Edited 12/10/09***


It's easy to see how cryonics organizations, such as Alcor and Suspended Animation, have remained subjects of public ridicule and doubt, when observing their supporters, (who do more harm, than good, if you ask me). Observe the Amazon.com book reviews for the Johnson/Baldyga book, "Frozen." More importantly, observe the comments under the book reviews.

Charles Platt, (who was implicated in unethical activities, in the book), wrote a three-sentence review, essentially calling the book "boring." He didn't call Johnson a liar, or deny anything in the book, simply stated it probably was "not very interesting." As of this morning, 32 out of 47 people found his comments "helpful." As I wrote on Amazon, I agree Platt's remarks were "helpful," in that knowing someone who has been accused of unethical activities, and who is one of the stars of Johnson's incriminating audiotapes, wants others to think the book is boring, but I don't think the voters were thinking along the same lines.

I, (a medical professional, who has worked in cryonics), wrote a review, and only 30 out of 68 people have found it "helpful." If one reads the comments under my review, they will find no small amount of lies, name-calling and personal attacks, (pretty much the same treatment I got, when I first started publicly exposing the incompetence, and unethical behavior, at Suspended Animation). I think it is safe to say the Kool-Aid drinkers are stacking the ballot boxes, when it comes to the public dissemination of information regarding cryonics organizations.

Cryonet is another fine example of the Kool-Aid drinkers attempting to suppress anything, and everything, that even remotely resembles a criticism of the cryonics organizations, and sometimes, even non-critical posts by people they don't like. Not long ago, someone complained about my posts not appearing due to my "rating being too low." Even my most inocuous posts were being rated as "flamebait." In my mind, nonsense like this is nothing more than the mostly-incompetent status quo, attempting to maintain their excessive salaries and "expert" status, by trying to quash any negative reviews of their work. Actions like these are probably motivated by fear, THEY KNOW my criticisms are accurate, so they don't want others to read them. If they had valid arguments to my criticisms, they would not attempt to quash my opinions, but would prove me wrong. Thankfully, a few open-minded, intelligent souls banded together, went back and gave all my posts positive ratings, so my future posts would appear.

When people respond to criticisms with only lies, personal attacks and attempts to quash the information, it indicates they have something to hide, and that the criticisms are most likely valid.

Suspended Animation's Perfusionists

When I was an employee of Suspended Animation, I fully intended to be the perfusionist on call, 48 weeks of the year. I'm not sure how that would have worked out, because at some point, as I recall, Platt, whom Kent insisted on having as a "Team Leader," said he wouldn't do cases with me. (Fancy that...Kent found a science fiction writer preferable to a qualified perfusionist, as a cryonics care provider.) Prior to that time, when I suggested we contract with a Florida-based perfusion group, to cover for my four vacation weeks, I was scoffed at, and told "real medical professionals won't work with us." I was also told it was "too expensive," so imagine my surprise, when SA contracted with the very same group for 52 weeks a year, and leased equipment from them. Recently, in a Cold Filter post, Steve Harris remarked on how expensive this is. Call me crazy, but if it means getting rid of a RUP, or two, to have qualified perfusionists at cryonics cases, that is what should be done.

I've been acquainted with a person who helps run that perfusion group, for quite a few years. When I found out they contracted with SA, I did contact him. I told him I was happy cryonics patients would have qualified perfusionists, but I also told him I thought he should be aware of what he might be getting into. Specifically, I said his perfusionists should be prepared to go to cases without anyone capable of performing a femoral cannulation, which is exactly what did happen. I also said they should either investigate the legalities of carrying certain drugs across state lines, or be cautious of carrying any of SA's luggage. I don't believe SA has done their homework, in regard to who may carry and/or administer certain medications they are using. I am not the only one to express this concern, Mr. Ettinger has also mentioned it, and I wouldn't want any of my fellow perfusionists to end up in jail, or ruin their careers, because SA might be pretending to be more "legitimate" than they really are.

When the Johnson book hit the shelves, I happened to notice that Suspended Animation was naming the perfusion group, on the SA website, and I became concerned. I thought it odd that SA refuses to name their own staff members, but was naming the perfusion group. (Is SA ashamed of their staff members, or are the staff members ashamed of cryonics? I suspect both.) I called my acquaintance, again, and asked him if he was aware of the book, or that his company was named on the SA website. He said he was not aware, of either, and seemed appropriately concerned about both. Personally, I think SA should have informed the perfusionists of the book and asked their permission to name the company on the website. If "FD," over on Cold Filter, wants to call my concern for my fellow perfusionists a "dirty trick," so be it, but in my opinion, they deserve the right to protect their identities, as much as, OR MORE THAN, the SA staff members, especially in light of the Johnson book, which implicates several people, with close ties to SA, in unethical behaviors.

The person I spoke to asked me how I got involved in cryonics politics. I told him I got involved because I thought cryonics patients deserved better care than what they were getting, and that I felt a lot of people were "scamming" the people funding the cryonics industry, by sending a bunch of laymen to botch femoral cannulations and perfusion attempts. His response? "Well, they're already dead, aren't they?" and "Everybody who pays for it knows there's little likelihood this will ever work, don't they?"

To be honest, the only objection I have to the first remark is that it indicates that person would not ever object to substandard care being given to cryonics patients, no matter how atrocious. In other words, if they arrived at procedures, for the next two decades, and there was never a good cannulation, or someone asked them to do something insane, (like deliver 17 liters of fluid to a patient, when there was no venous return), they wouldn't say anything.

As for the second remark, my response was, "Take a hike on the Suspended Animation website, and tell me you don't think they are misrepresenting the quality of their services to the people who are buying them." He didn't have anything to say about that, and I'm pretty sure he had never visited the SA website.

He told me he "...never had any problem with them, other than like you said, they can't do a femoral cannulation..." What does this mean? I think it means his group gets paid promptly, for providing perfusionists for training sessions and cases, and for leasing equipment, to SA. I was under the distinct impression he didn't really care about anything other than that. As he said, "They're (the patients) are already dead, aren't they?"

If I were managing a cryonics care facility, I wouldn't have any problem with hiring qualified perfusionists, even if they thought cryonics was the biggest joke, in the universe, as long as I felt they would properly perform their duties. However, to provide qualified perfusionists, without anyone to perform the cannulations they need, in order to properly perform perfusion, is just a waste of money, and sending only people who won't object to what I would call "malpractice," because the patients "are already dead," is not going to lead to progress. Someone involved has to give a damn about something other than the money.

Alcor vs. Johnson and Vanguard Press

Go to http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain

Click on "Index Search"

Enter "113938/2009" in the "Index Number" space and click on "Find Case(s).

Click on the Index Number, and then click on "Show eFiled Documents"

You will be able to read all of the court documents, in the Alcor vs. Vanguard Press and Larry Johnson. Personally, I think Mr. Yalowitz (Vanguard) and Ms. Wang (Johnson) are extremely sharp and have made excellent arguments. I think Mr. Bauer (Alcor) is probably doing the best he can, with what he has to work with.

Alcor seems to be relying on several arguments that hold little validity, in my opinion. They want to make the "trade secrets" argument, but I think it's pretty clear that the only "trade secret" they have may be their vitrification solution recipe, and Johnson hasn't revealed that to anyone, as far as I know. I think it will be difficult for them to argue "trade secrets," when they have been singing the "transparency" song for so long, and have published almost every detail of their operations and procedures, on the Internet.

There's the related issue of them claiming Johnson has provided the public with information that may give their competition an unfair advantage. That's just plain silly, as there really is no competition, other than, maybe, CI, and I don't think Johnson gave CI any information they didn't already have. In fact, Ben Best was recently at Alcor, where they supposedly asked him to sign an NDA, and showed him around. In other words, they may have allowed their only competition to come in the Alcor facility and view whatever it is they are claiming as "trade secrets." In addition, many people with connections to Alcor have claimed that Johnson's publicity has HELPED Alcor gain an increase in membership, in the past.

Then, Alcor resorts to the NDA, and other related issues. Their attorneys state that Platt "unequivocally" claims Johnson signed an NDA, but he did no such thing, and Johnson's attorney picked right up on that. As she writes, Platt carefully parsed his words in a manner that would avoid possibly committing perjury. He states he called someone at Alcor, and asked them to look in Johnson's employee file, for an NDA. I can only imagine this same thing happened, when he accused me of stealing a non-existent NDA, at SA. Johnson's attorney, apparently, has an imagination similar to mine, and has done her homework. She includes the agreement/apology, Platt posted on CF and Cryonet, in response to my threats to take legal action, in regard to the lies and/or malicious "speculations" that were being made, in attempts to discredit me, (See her "Exhibit 9).

Finally, Alcor wants to cry about the restraining orders against Johnson, but it appears they never properly served him. Johnson's attorney points out that a process server relayed to Alcor that the address where he was to be served was a "bad address," but Alcor proceeded to send Certified Mail there, and when it wasn't returned, put forth that Johnson had been properly served.

It should be interesting to find out what the judge thinks of these motions, in tomorrow's hearing. So far, I have the score as "Johnson 2, Alcor 0." Regardless of the outcome, the book is out and Johnson has already made the interview rounds. All Alcor is doing, in my opinion, is wasting a lot of money, making themselves look deceptive and foolish, and promoting Johnson's book.