Cryonics Cranks and Crackpots

I'm not really surprised when people I consider to be intelligent continue to hold Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz up as some sort of cryonics icon, but I am dismayed. He puts on a good show, spewing out medical terminology like there's no tomorrow, but any valid information he spews forth almost always comes from the works of others, in conventional medicine. The cryonics audience seems to frequently overlook the fact that someone who regurgitates known scientific information, is not responsible for establishing it, and most often cannot be relied upon to build on it! On top of that, his audience is mostly comprised of laymen, (people unfamiliar with perfusion and hypothermic procedures), who will not recognize his mistakes. Federowicz is a quack, a crank, a liar, and perhaps much worse than that; if you ask me, people like him are the primary reason most REAL scientists and medical professionals are reluctant to be associated with cryonics.

Federowicz recently wrote:
"It is certainly true that some cryopatients unequivocally benefit from aggressive reperfusion with ventilation as evidenced by return of good tissue perfusion and even the return of neocortical electrical activity (and if un-medicated, return of consciousness)."
http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/mike-darwin-on-anoxic-cps/

Is that true? Did some of the persons undergoing cryopreservation efforts exhibit "the return of neocortical electrical activity and if un-medicated, return of consciousness"??? If they did experience a "return of consciousness," were they given an injection to make them "legally" (or, perhaps, "illegally") dead, again? (There have been public accusations of the illegal euthanization of people undergoing cryonics procedures, and some of the Johnson tapes do seem to be of Alcor personnel discussing more than one such incident.)

The truth is, Federowicz cannot prove "...cryopatients unequivocally benefit from aggressive reperfusion with ventilation..." It's easy for Federowicz and his peers to make such grandiose claims, because their human experiments have no outcomes. They perform their little poorly-designed, poorly-executed experiments; drop the subjects in liquid nitrogen vapor; and then there's never any outcomes by which people can judge the efficacy of their procedures.

In the same article, Federowicz goes on to write:
"What is really needed is systematic research in truly relevant animal models (i.e., following cardiac arrest from sepsis, hypovolemia in the setting of systemic inflammation, prolonged hypoxia, and so on) to determine if anoxic (closed chest) CPS can be made workable or even superior to CPS with ventilation."

Mr. Federowicz would probably like nothing more than to have someone fund more cryonics animal experiments, where an unqualified person, such as himself, could play doctor, subjecting even more than the >1,000 dogs he claims to have already experimented on, to painful, mostly pointless and unproductive, experimentation.

In 30 - 40 years of "cryonics research," what have Mr. Federowicz and his peers contributed to hypothermic medicine? What have they contributed to cryonics, other than a bad reputation? What, exactly, have cryonics dog experiments accomplished? Were Federowicz' and/or Steve Harris' dog experiments reliable, and have they been of any value, whatsoever, to the advancement of hypothermic medicine?

I can't imagine anyone being under the impression that Federowicz should be someone to advise on developing "systematic research." Whom have Federowicz and his peers impressed, other than cryonicists, (an audience comprised mostly of young laypersons, who are easily taken in by some crank, like Federowicz, spewing forth medical terminology)? There is a plethora of ongoing research experiments being carried out by reputable scientists and clinicians, exploring the topics of perfusion and hypothermic medicine, and the cryonics community continues to look for advice from the likes of Federowicz?

Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz may be an "expert" in the eyes of some cryonicists, but I think that's mostly due to the relative ignorance of his audience, his shameless self-promotion and that of his cryonics peers. "Cryonics experts," for the most part, are a small self-serving group, who specialize in "smoke and mirrors."

People should have recognized Federowicz for what he is, by now. Amongst other things, he is someone who would blatantly lie about being a board-eligible perfusionist, when he most certainly knows he never met the requirments to make such a claim. A hospice nurse claims Federowicz also lied to him about being a nurse, and Federowicz has referred to himself as a "surgeon," in numerous cryonics case reports. I believe this constitutes a felony, in some states, and is possibly a violation of federal law. Federowicz has never been a board-eligible perfusionist, or a nurse, and he is not a physician, at all, much less a surgeon. His only formal medical training, as far as I know, is as a dialysis technician. If the cryonics organizations want to rely on self-proclaimed experts and laymen "doing the best they can," let them label those persons as such.