Friday, September 21, 2007

Steve Harris' Mistaken Assumptions About SA's Operating Room

In response to Harris' "More Bits Than Pieces" post, of September 17 on the "Cold Filter" forum:

HARRIS: "And I see you put a gas blender into the O.R., too, but didn't bother to hook it to any compressed air source (nor was there one in the building), making it worse than useless. Did you have a good laugh about that, too? We didn't after you left. Nor was there any oxygen connected from tank to new oxygenator."

Harris might not be laughing, and I had no reason to laugh about this (or even to think about it), when I left SA, but I'm laughing pretty hard, right now.

Harris assumed I took the gas blender into the O.R., but someone has pointed out to me that he is perhaps making an even greater assumption than that. Did Harris mistakenly think the SA O.R. was set up for a washout procedure??? He must have, otherwise, why would he think having oxygen, compressed air or a gas blender in that room was a critical matter? The operating room at Suspended Animation, Inc. was being prepared for cryopreservation (vitrification), NOT the washout procedure, (though the two processes could be combined, in the ideal situation that a patient could be quickly brought to a facility that had those capabilities.)

So...just why IS Harris making a big deal out of oxygen not being "connected from tank to new oxygenator"? The oxygenator he's referring to wasn't "new," by any means. When I left SA, the only oxygenator in the O.R. was probably more than ten years old. The reason for this is, it was in a NON-STERILE PROTOTYPE VITRIFICATION CIRCUIT Mathew had built. SA is nowhere near vitrification capability, (and, at the rate they are progressing, I doubt they ever will be!). So, why does Harris think it's critical that oxygen should have been hooked up to the prototype vitrification circuit???

DID Harris mistakenly think the complicated, OBVIOUSLY non-sterile circuit in the operating room at SA was a sterile washout circuit, waiting for a patient? Anyone with cryonics experience should have known AT FIRST GLANCE that the circuit in the SA operating room was a non-sterile prototype of a vitrification circuit, and therefore, not have been concerned about the lack of an oxygen hookup. WHAT WAS HARRIS THINKING IN WRITING ABOUT THIS???

I was using the circuit to acquaint myself with the components needed for vitrification, and reviewing the circuit for simplification. Mathew and Aschwin were using it for other purposes. I, myself, made many cuts in the tubing with unwashed scissors and hands. If Harris had looked closely, he could have probably seen cat hairs all over the room, for crissakes, and he's going to act as though I was negligent for not hooking oxygen up to a dirty prototype of a VITRIFICATION circuit? Is he REALLY that unobservant...or is he THAT DESPERATE to discredit me???

The O.R. at SA is being set up for cryopreservation procedures, as obviously evidenced by the prototype of a vitrification circuit in that room (it would be impossible for anyone with cryonics experience to confuse this circuit with a simple washout circuit), the connections in that room to a very expensive chiller used to cool patients to cryogenic temperatures (used during vitrification, NOT washout), and Platt's amateur attempts to build cryogenic cooldown box/shipping containers (when professionally built cryogenic containers are available for just over what SA pays for one 40-hour week of Platt's time). Harris is so busy grasping at straws and Platt's lies, in attempts to discredit me, he's not looking at all the evidence that is right there, staring him in the face. WHY?


Harris might not have laughed about the lack of oxygen in the O.R., but I'm still having a pretty good laugh at him being concerned about that non-issue. To begin with, SA is eons away from being ready to perform cryopreservation (vitrification) procedures. Secondly, I seriously doubt oxygen is of any benefit, whatsoever, during the vitrification process. Oxygen consumption approaches zero, at zero degrees C. The washout procedure is supposed to take the patient to very near this temperature, and the patient is taken well below that temperature at the initiation of the cryopreservation (vitrification) process.

As many people are aware, I have concerns about the use of oxygen in cryonics procedures, at all; I think it probably does more harm than good, in most cases. Harris comes to this forum and claims Newsweek made a mistake in portraying that the renowned Dr. Lance Becker believes post-ischemic oxygenation may cause serious harm, yet neither Becker, nor any of his colleagues, have written that Newsweek was in error. There's a Charles Platt article that refers to Lance Becker as Harris' "competition." Somehow, I doubt that Becker considers Harris a "peer," much less a "competitor." Certainly, someone associated with Lance Becker's research would have objected to any misinformation in the Newsweek article, in a letter to the editors, just as Lewis G. Larsen, President and CEO of Lattice Energy, LLC did, in response to a Platt article in Make Magazine, regarding the work of Dr. Edmund Storms:

"Letter to the Editors of Make Magazine:We have read Charles Platt's published work for a number of years and consider him to be an excellent writer and thoughtful reporter of the leading edge of science, including the controversial subject of cold fusion.

That having been said, we read his July 21, 2005, article, "The Fascination of Extreme Science" and his Make - Volume 03 article titled "A Fusion Reactor for the Rest of Us " which referenced the ongoing work of Dr. Edmund Storms in the field of "cold fusion" (a.k.a. low-energy nuclear reactions) and would like to clarify the following:

1. Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a "solitary endeavor" nor is he a "lone garage scientist" nor is he a "lone scientist" working on his own. Quite to the contrary, he conducts LENR research as an employee, senior scientist, and minority owner of a privately held company named Lattice Energy, LLC which received its initial funding in 2001. Dr. Storms' affiliation with Lattice was not disclosed in the articles other than stating that, "His latest acquisition, the electron microscope, is on loan from a small Chicago company of speculative investors who hope that Storms may make a crucial breakthrough in his one-man research initiative." We do not agree with the characterization that Lattice is a "company of speculative investors." Since its formation, it has conducted R&D activities with a variety of scientists at several institutions, developed a portfolio of intellectual property, and entered into discussions with potential strategic partners. Lattice's business goal is to commercialize the company's proprietary LENR-related technologies. Lattice plans to establish corporate research facilities in the Chicago area in the near future. Dr. Storms was a consultant to the company in 2003, became a senior scientist to the company in 2004, and continues to conduct laboratory experiments for the company on a full-time, exclusive basis.

2. There is only one (not two as stated in the article) major piece of analytical equipment in Dr. Storms' home laboratory. It is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with an integrated energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDX) used to perform elemental analysis of surface structures seen with the SEM. The SEM/EDX equipment is owned by Lattice and was installed at Dr. Storms' home laboratory in mid-2004 (not in 2005 as stated in the article).

3. Dr. Storms did not devise Lattice's commercialization plan nor was he involved in identifying initial market applications for LENR-based technologies, such as nuclear battery-like devices, or possible manufacturing techniques. Lattice plans to develop actual commercial prototypes at other facilities, not at Dr. Storm's home laboratory.

4. We do not agree with the statement that low-energy nuclear reactions "… violate our understanding of physics." To the contrary, Professor Allan Widom of Northeastern University (Boston, MA), Department of Physics, and I have published a technical paper on the arXiv preprint server that offers an alternative explanation for many anomalous phenomena that have been aggregated under the label of "cold fusion." This paper, "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" can be found at Our theory, if verified experimentally by other laboratories: (a) falls solidly within the established laws of physics; and (b) does not involve any D-D or D-D-like fusion.

Sincerely,Lewis G. Larsen
President and CEO
Lattice Energy, LLC
Chicago, IL(312) 861-0115"

I would guess that, before Harris started attempting to discredit me, most people on the Cold Filter forum, (including myself), had no reason to question or disrespect him, but how much credibility does Harris have, now? Has it yet to even cross his mind that he has made a HUGE mistake in trusting Platt's word, over mine? More importantly, has it crossed Saul Kent's mind that the two people at the helm of two of his cryonics organizations, (one of them allegedly a mere "consultant"), have made little-to-no progress over the years, have publicly engaged in unethical and inappropriate behavior, and have made a laughing stock of everyone associated with one of those organizations? Does he yet realize the biggest problem within that organization has been not only an EXTREME degree of poor management, but CORRUPTION???

Contrary to what many people may believe, the destruction of Suspended Animation, Inc. was not my goal when I set out on this journey. I was, and still am, interested in seeing the TOTAL REFORM of that company. I am fascinated with the science of cryonics, and I want to know if it can really work. I believe it can, based on my previous perfusion experiences. Unfortunately, the total reformation of SA would require Kent breaking all ties with Platt, (and perhaps now Harris, too), and most people tell me that is unlikely to happen. Charles Platt used to tell me the most important thing in the world to Saul Kent was his own successful cryopreservation, but for some odd reason that seems to actually take second place to Kent's blind faith in, and loyalty to, a certain science fiction writer.

Important Questions About Suspended Animation Inc.


1. What is SA's REAL purpose?

They claim to have a goal of providing the best "standby, stabilization and transport" services, in the land, but after more than five years and six million dollars, they've failed at that, miserably.

2. Why is SA working toward vitrification, which is a very complex procedure, when they do not even have personnel capable of performing the washout procedure, which is simple, by comparison?

They are trying to run, when they can't even crawl.

3. Why has SA's website never been up-to-date, and why are their news bulletins so infrequent?

The contract for the website was signed in July 2006, between SA and Manhattan Text and Graphics, a partnership owned by Platt and his girlfriend. Fourteen months later, there are still pages under construction and many of the other pages are not up-to-date. Typos that were mentioned by SA personnel, at the time the website was first posted, are still there.

In my opinion, Platt approaches the SA website in the same self-serving way he approaches everything. Aschwin and I asked Saul, on numerous occasions why Platt had not posted the SA staff bios, when he had them for months. Saul said he didn't know why Charles had not yet done this. As I predicted to Aschwin and Mathew, the bios appeared within days after my resignation. Funny, how Aschwin's bio disappeared from the staff page on practically the day he resigned, when little else was being done to the website. (Don't let the fact that Aschwin worked with Charles on the SA case report be deceiving; I'm quite sure Platt hates Aschwin almost as much he hates me.)

4. Why does SA depend so heavily on consultants? Everyone at that facility, (other than Ms Baldwin, perhaps), knows Platt, (allegedly an SA "consultant"), has been in control of that facility since he arrived in 2004, even when other people have been named as managers. It should be obvious to everyone on this forum that Harris and Platt, (again, allegedly CONSULTANTS for SA), have entirely too much control of that facility. Should an SA "consultant" in California be answering accusations by a former employee/co-manager of SA, based on information provided to him by another SA "consultant"? I don't think so, yet that is what has happened. Clearly bizarre, but excellent proof of the fact that SA has SERIOUS leadership issues.

a. Why isn't Aschwin de Wolf's bio on the SA "Consultants" page, when the bios of medical professionals who can't be bothered to show up for cases are? I'm almost certain Aschwin has not requested to be omitted from the page.

b. When is the last time anyone at SA consulted with Peter Voss, who is on the SA "Consultants" page? Do they really consult with anyone on that page, other than Platt and Harris?

c. Why is Soard on that page when Platt says Soard's PhD is a "waste of paper on a papermill degree"?

d. Why isn't Todd Huffman's bio on the "Consultants" page? They announced in News Bulletin 10, five months ago, that he had signed a consulting contract.

e. Why is Mike Quinn, a person whom I believe has femoral cannulation experience, on the "Consultants" page, when Platt admits to not even calling him out for the recent case? It's my personal observation that there's little-to-no respect between Platt and Quinn.

f. Is Platt just using the credentials of these people, (most of whom he does not like, or respect), to impress visitors to SA's website?