Saturday, January 22, 2011

In Response to Mike Darwin's "Automated Data Collection" Post (Cryonet #33255)

It is absurd for Mike Darwin to maintain that cardiovascular perfusion is “very simple to automated compared to some of the unbelievable complex and exactly manufacturing processes (he’s) seen automated it can be surprisingly difficult, even if you have you have experts, and enormous computing power at your disposal.” [sic] (*Note: Mr. Darwin refers to cardiovascular perfusion as “cardiovascular bypass,” terminology that might be confusing to some, as indicated by Perry Metzger’s Cryonet response to Mr. Darwin, in which Mr. Metzger asks if Mr. Darwin is referring to automating an entire cardiovascular surgical procedure. (Cryonet message 33257))

It’s nonsensical to assert that something “very simple” is at the same time “surprising difficult,” even in the hands of experts with unlimited technological resources. Even more than that, it is preposterous to compare the manufacturing of a specified component, or device, which requires the same, precise, repetitive steps, time-after-time-after-time, to the perfusion of human beings.

Responding to Mr. Darwin’s automated airplane/perfusion analogy, it doesn’t matter WHY the wind blows, or WHY the terrain rises, it only matters that the plane must maintain its center of gravity and stay above the terrain. However, it DOES matter why venous return to a heart-lung (perfusion) machine diminishes. Did the patient’s blood vessels dilate, resulting in more volume remaining in the patient, and less returning to the machine? If so, the proper response might be administering vasoconstrictors. Is the surgeon pulling the heart over, so that he can work on the posterior side, temporarily interfering with the venous return to the machine? If so, the proper response is to temporarily adjust the flow rate, provided that doing so does not result in the patient being inadequately perfused. Has something happened, which resulted in an unexpected loss of blood, from the patient, or perfusion circuit? If so, that situation needs to be recognized and corrected, immediately, and volume must be added to the system, to replace that which has been lost. (This discussion is simplified, and intended to be for an audience of laymen. There are many factors, in regard to both the causes of, and the responses to, such a situation.) If the returning volume is suddenly depleted, does the computer have discussions with the anesthetist and the surgeon, to determine the cause of, (and, therefore, the proper response to), such a situation? This is only one example of MANY issues, which perfusionists must respond to, on a case-by-case basis; a situation that precludes the use of fully-automated perfusion systems. There is nothing in the perfusion process, similar to the precise manufacturing of components, or devices, no matter how complex that manufacturing might be!

Perfusion IS automated, to a large degree. Perfusionists can program their machines to respond to various parameters, in a variety of ways. For example, the machines can be made to automatically adjust flow rates, in response to pressure; or to turn off a pump and clamp the patient lines, in the event of inappropriate pressures, or air in the lines. But, what happens after that? Someone, who knows how to assess the situation, and produce the proper response, must be operating that machine. I find it quite arrogant, for Mr. Darwin to claim he has tried to automate perfusion systems and has found it difficult. Does Mr. Darwin think he compares to the scientists, perfusionists and engineers, involved in equipment development, with the major manufacturers of perfusion equipment? While I’m sure Mr. Darwin has toyed with primitive perfusion equipment, at cryonics facilities, he is not a perfusionist, or an engineer, and he certainly does not have resources comparable to those of companies, which specialize in perfusion equipment, such as those mentioned here:

Mr. Darwin wants to argue that such automation could require less-skilled personnel, something I find disturbing. Someone who does not routinely assemble and operate perfusion equipment is very unlikely to be able to assess, and correct, problems that might occur with an automated-system failure. Would Mr. Darwin like someone who has memorized the contents of a dozen aviation textbooks, but never flown an airplane, to be sitting in the cockpit of his commercial airliner, when the computer goes out? I find his argument for “knowledge without reflexes” being “sufficient,” (in regard to cardiovascular perfusion and flight), to be absolutely ludicrous.

Mr. Darwin’s remarks about a market not existing, for automated perfusion, resulting in “no economies of scale…that further drives up the price and drives down the reliability of any system you do develop,” is just as ridiculous as most of his other observations and speculations. The perfusion disposables I used two decades ago, cost approximately $1,600; today, the same disposables are around $500. I’m not a financial expert, but the machines, themselves, seem not to have increased more than that due to ordinary inflation. If there has been an increase, it has probably been due to the developments in the computerization/automation features! Salaries also seem not to have risen, other than increases due to inflation, over time. Never before has perfusion been so technologically-advanced, reasonably-priced, or safe. It is much more likely that heart surgery will eventually be performed, without the use of perfusion, than with the use of fully-automated perfusion, as evidenced by an ever-increasing number of “off-pump” procedures. (Of course, this has nothing to do with cryonics. Heart surgery can sometimes be performed, without the use of perfusion, but the vitrification of human bodies cannot.)

The fact that Mike Darwin is one of cryonics’ greatest “superstars” should be quite telling. How many cryonics projects have been directed, on the advice of Mr. Darwin and others like him? How many of those projects were based in ignorance of existing equipment and technology? For so long as people like Mr. Darwin and his peers are considered to be “experts,” in cryonics experiments, there is likely to be nothing more than ample misdirection and false promises. It seems a very small group of self-interested people have made, what could be an interesting scientific experiment, a total sham. (By “self-interested,” I do not mean people who are interested in extending their own lives; I mean people who are primarily interested in maintaining their over-inflated egos and/or bank accounts, by maintaining control of experiments and/or projects, which they are not capable of leading.)

The fact that the same small group of people have remained in control of the cryonics industry, for so many years, while the quality of their services have often been misrepresented, is why cryonics activities should be regulated. These organizations simply cannot be allowed to charge up to $200,000+, for their procedures, or to encourage people to name their organizations as the beneficiaries of trust funds and/or bequests, unless they are willing to fully, and prominently, disclose their capabilities, (or lack thereof), in their marketing efforts. I don't mind "garage projects," but they should be advertised as such.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

A Response to Mike Darwin's "Manifesto"

I do not believe anyone who truly knows me would think I fit the definition of a "sociopath," a "cretin," a “lunatic,” a "Nazi," or any of the other derogatory names, Mike Darwin has been throwing around. The information presented as factual, (as opposed to items clearly designated as opinion, or hearsay), on my blog, is accurate, to the best of my knowledge. The fact that I may agree, on a few points, with the more vitriolic critics of cryonics activities, does not indicate I agree with them on everything, or with the way they express themselves.

Contrary to Mike Darwin’s complaints, I have not engaged in publishing lies, and I have never run background checks on, or published information about the private lives of, the people I have criticized. However, Mike Darwin's associates, such as Charles Platt, Steve Harris MD, and Jordan Sparks did do those things, to me, in lieu of producing valid responses to the legitimate concerns I expressed about the activities of LEF-funded Suspended Animation.
Mike Darwin, himself, has told many lies, including claiming he was, at one time, a “board-eligible perfusionist.” To make such a claim implies he was aware of the requirements, and I’m sure he knows he has never even come close to meeting the qualifications required to sit for the ABCP exams. When I challenged him on his false claim, he disappeared from the forum where that discussion was taking place.

Now, Mr. Darwin wants to argue that cryonics would be better-modeled after a secret fraternal organization. Fancy that. It makes sense for him to make such a suggestion, because only when hidden from the public view, can Mr. Darwin perpetuate his lies, pretend to be a “Chief Surgeon,” or a perfusionist, and try to pass himself off as some sort of respected, accomplished expert in the medical sciences. Unfortunately for Mr. Darwin, the people who have caused his reputation the most harm, are his peers, and his former co-workers at Alcor. In all actuality, it is most likely Mr. Darwin’s own actions, which have damaged his reputation to the point, where he is no longer welcomed as an employee, of cryonics organizations, (in spite of the fact that he seems to take credit for, not only their alleged successes, but in one recent article, even their failures!).

I have no objection to people being cryogenically-preserved. In fact, I am fascinated with the concept, and I think everyone should receive what he/she wishes, at the time of legal death. With that said, I believe organizations, such as Alcor and Suspended Animation, have grossly misrepresented themselves in the public eye, and people are not getting what they may think they are paying for, when they subscribe to the services of those organizations. Mike Darwin has played a large role in this deception, by assigning labels, such as "Surgeon," and even "Chief Surgeon," to himself and others, in Alcor's published case reports, (something I'm told is illegal, in the State of Arizona). These deceptive practices must stop. As I've written, many times, if these organizations want to give full disclosure, I will have little objection to their activities. (By “full disclosure,” I do not mean making statements, hidden in the small print of lengthy documents no one ever reads, while presenting themselves, to the public, as something much more than what they really are.)

In essence, I feel people are being "conned" out of up to $200,000, (plus decades of membership dues, insurance premiums, and other miscellaneous charges), for services, which have been grossly misrepresented and are far inferior to what they could be. On top of that, people are being encouraged to leave trust funds, or even their estates, to organizations that have produced little valid scientific research, and whose leaders have made them the subjects of ridicule and harsh criticism, through their many questionable activities, and nearly-total lack of progress. Cryonics organizations sell their services with a heavy reliance on the capabilities, and altruism, of people who have yet to be born, (the "scientists of the future). These organizations expect their clients to believe these future scientists and clinicians will not only cure what cryo-suspended persons have died from, but repair the extreme degree of damage the cryonics organizations, themselves, are inflicting, with their DIY equipment and unskilled personnel.

Some of the people, determined to make sure cryonics stays on the same path, are extremely intelligent, but intelligence does not guarantee competence, ethical behavior, or even good intentions. Many of their writings are seriously flawed, and others appear to be nothing more than the regurgitation of information readily found in textbooks. Their rationale for their activities is inconsistent, at best. In one venue, we have LEF-funded Steve Harris maintaining the liquid ventilation project has taken so long, (more than a decade), because they were trying to minimize lung damage; in another venue, we have LEF-funded Brian Wowk responding to some of my criticisms, with the excuse that the vitrification solutions are so toxic, it doesn’t matter how much damage laymen care providers inflict. These arguments contradict one another, and it’s only one, of many examples, of their inconsistencies. These two men, and others, want the amateur engineering projects to continue, indefinitely, for what I believe are obvious reasons.

For approximately 40 years, cryonics has resembled a garage project, rather than a medical-science endeavor. There have been decades devoted to ridiculous design and fabrication projects, when the majority of the equipment could have been purchased, for but a fraction of what Alcor and/or the LEF-funded organizations paid to amateur engineers, to design and build grossly inferior equipment. For example, I estimate that well into seven figures has been spent, (mostly man-hours), over the decades, on the amateur design of perfusion circuits to be used for the vitrification process, when a state-of-the-art heart-lung machine would easily fulfill the requirements, and for a price barely into six figures. Instead of using their millions to purchase the appropriate equipment, and hiring qualified personnel to perform their procedures, these companies spend millions, year-after-year, on DIY equipment, and on trying to train laymen to perform the tasks of skilled medical professionals. For them to claim they do not have the financing to do better, while offering up the Timeship project, is absurd. I no longer see any hope of reform, and look at the entire industry as being rife with corruption, quacks, cranks and con artists.

As far as I know, I am the only person who writes on cryonics forums, who has actually participated in procedures in which people were cooled to clinical death, and then revived. How many cryonicists really believe I am just a mean-spirited, spiteful woman, on some sort of warped personal vendetta? Isn’t it much more likely that I am a professional, with relevant experience, who is appalled at what I see as a mockery of medical procedures that have played an important role in my life? I have a cumulative decade of surgical experience, in conventional medicine, and there is not one co-worker, past or present, (outside of cryonics), who would describe me as anything less than professional, ethical and easy to get along with.

I am truly fascinated with the notion of exploring the extension of existing hypothermic medical procedures. If there are people I would like to see removed from the cryonics arena, it is because I believe those people stand in the way of ethical behavior and professionalism, (and, therefore, any hope of progress), in the interest of padding their own egos and/or wallets, indefinitely. Many of these people have greatly benefitted, from the generosity of the benefactors of cryonics organizations, while leaving their organizations in the “dark ages” of hypothermic medicine. Logically, cryonics procedures should be an extension of hypothermic procedures being performed in conventional medicine, yet cryonics procedures, as provided by the existing organizations, pale in comparison to the conventional procedures, as they were decades ago! The people responsible for this situation have a million excuses, such as “We can’t afford to hire qualified personnel,” but one needs only to look at their salaries, most of which exceed that of the majority of medical professionals, to know this is not true.

How many cryonicists can look at the recent decisions and activities, of Alcor, the LEF-funded organizations, Cryonics Institute, and the American Cryonics Society, and pretend the leaderships of those organizations are capable of rendering cryonics more acceptable to the general population? How many cryonicists think the endless amateur equipment design and fabrication projects really qualify as “research and development," of the nature needed to advance the science of cryonics? How many cryonicists want another 40 years of little-to-no progress, and abundant scandal? Do cryonicists think they will receive anything other than that, for so long as the key players remain the same? Though Max More appears to be an incredibly intelligent man, he does not have a background in the medical sciences. Who will be his mentors, in regard to the medical procedures Alcor is trying to perform? The same people who have botched so many procedures, made so many mistakes, and brought little but embarrassment to the cryonics community, with their non-sensical amateur efforts, and their apparent disregard for the reputations of their organizations? How many cryonicists think the cryonics community can avoid stringent regulation, if these activities continue?

(A digression: As many people know, I question the appointment, of Mr. More, at Alcor, given his propensity for shocking people with his unconventional ideas, public antics, and published documents that would probably send his resume into the wastebasket, in most of corporate America. Let's face it, most companies interested in gaining more respect from the general public, would not consider Mr. More for a leadership position, but no one can deny his obvious extreme degree of intelligence. Will he stray off the beaten path that has taken Alcor nowhere, or will he allow himself to be subjected to the advice of those who have come before him, and who have accomplished so very little of significance? Will he define himself as a true independent thinker and take cryonics in a new direction, or will he become just another cog in a well-oiled propaganda machine?)

Mike Darwin’s “call for action” was a plea for people to stop supplying the critics of cryonics organizations, with information. None of the cryonicists, who communicate with me, (and a number of them are in favor of regulation), have any respect for Mike Darwin; they see him as a pariah, someone who has caused great harm to the cryonics community. If people of the cryonics community want to join Mr. Darwin in his “secret society,” and freeze one another, in each other’s garages, have at it, (sarcasm, not an endorsement of illegal activities). However, if cryonics organizations want to pretend they are something they are not, by publishing reports that refer to laymen, as “surgeons,” or other medical professionals, while charging unsuspecting clients up to $200,000, for their poor-performed procedures, do not expect my peers and I to sit, idly by, saying nothing. The medical community will not be able to ignore reports filled with medical terminology, (often used improperly, because the authors do not understand the procedures they are discussing), which appear to be intended to mislead the public, in regard to the capabilities of these organizations.

I am not “attempting to destroy cryonics,” and I have no “thirst for death and blood in the arena,” (Mr. Darwin’s remarks that have had me laughing, for days, and will humor my friends, co-workers and relatives, no small amount). Mike Darwin has every reason to want cryonics to go underground. I, on the other hand, want the organizations to operate in a way that is beyond public reproach. Who is really more likely to “destroy cryonics,” someone like Mike Darwin, or someone like me?

Mr. Darwin may impress a small number of people, mostly comprised of laymen, by churning out technical mumbo-jumbo, but he will never be admired, in the world of conventional hypothermic medicine. Sometimes, people ask me to respond to his ramblings, but I don’t have time to carry on technical debates, with someone whose arguments are filled with lies and mistakes, (not to mention cultish rhetoric), in front of an audience comprised mostly of laymen. I am going to answer Mike Darwin's “call to action," but not in the arena of cryonics Internet forums, and not with an army of laymen.

To cryonicists, who would like to see something more than promises of the future, from people who cannot deliver today’s technology, I wish you all well. I hope you will achieve your dream, in spite of Mr. Darwin, and others like him. Who knows? Maybe it will be an “annus mirabilis,” for the cryonics community.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Mistaken Assumptions

Richiekgb quoting Max More, on the Rick Ross site: "It's unfortunate that Ms. Maxim launched into a destructive attack (with a false headline) without bothering to check with me, knowing that I wrote that article when I was a *teenager*."

Mr. More makes a mistaken assumption. He accuses me of "knowing that (he) wrote that article when (he) was a *teenager,*" when I knew no such thing. To be perfectly honest, I don't know how old Mr. More is, and I wasn't paying attention to the date of the article, when I commented on it. All I knew, when I read the article, was that every thread of maternal instinct in me screamed, "Hang Max More." Yet, here he is, wanting everyone to give him the benefit of the doubt, while he makes negative assumptions about me.

I don't think anyone, wanting to expose what they thought to be truly abhorrent behavior, would "(bother) to check with" the person they were trying to expose. (By "behavior," I am accusing Mr. More of writing what I consider to be a truly disgusting article, nothing more.) If everyone wanting to write an expose, checked with the person they were writing about, first, there would probably be a lot of disappearing evidence!

As for the "false headline" Mr. More accuses me of, even I felt uncomfortable with my use of the word "promotes," which is why I changed the title, not long after writing it. However, to be honest, the word I was searching for, but could not come up with at the time, was "endorses," (which probably paints just as ugly of a picture). Whether Mr. More likes it, or not, his article did read as an endorsement of pedophilia.

STILL, I had a bad taste in my mouth, after writing about him, with the nagging thought that I don't know him, in the back of my mind, and was thinking of, at least, toning down what I had written. The situation for me was compounded, when Mr. More's wife threatened me with litigation, (I don't respond well, to threats), and indicated the purpose of the article was Mr. More's "attempt to offer fair and just 'discussion' between those who have a mental illness and the law," something I found insulting to my intelligence.

So, now, here we are...with Mr. More asking, "Why didn't Ms. Maxim just check with me?" and me asking "Why didn't Mr. More just send me an email, saying, "Hey, did you bother to note I was just a kid, when I wrote that garbage? Please let me explain."

I'm not sure what to do. I WANT to believe him, but I'm not sure Mr. More is telling the truth about his change of heart, regarding coercion and the age of consent. It's hard for me to consider an about-face on something as extreme as that, because I sincerely believe I have the same fundamental values, now, as I had when I was a teenager. Also, it's hard for me to believe anything that comes from someone connected to cryonics organizations, when there have been so many lies. On the other hand, Mr. More WAS incredibly young when he wrote the article, and some people REALLY DO change, over time, and we all make mistakes. On top of that, Mr. More seems to like attention, (though he may be changing his mind about that), and I think it's entirely possible he WAS just trying to get attention, when he wrote that article, as a very young man. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I don't like removing things from my blog, (especially when people have threatened me with litigation). If Mr. More follows through with re-publishing the article, with an explanation of how his opinions have changed over time, I will seriously consider replacing what I wrote on my blog, with simply a link to his new piece, and maybe a brief comment.

Mr. More doesn't know how disappointed I was, to read his article. He and I have probably jumped to conclusions about one another, and at least one of us (him) has probably been told a lot of lies about the other. It's a sad situation, really, considering my background and (what should be) his goals, for Alcor.

Now, I had better click "Publish Post," before I change my mind. I'm still uncertain about this situation, and I'm not looking forward to "catching it from both sides," (supporters, and enemies, alike, for this post).

More on Max More, Alcor's New CEO

On New Year's Day, I published a blog entry, regarding an article written by Max More, addressing "consensual sex" with children. No response came from Mr. More, or Alcor, unless one wants to count threats of litigation from his wife and the removal of the offending article from the Internet.

I was researching Mr. More, because I was curious to know if he had ANY qualifications that would make him a good candidate to lead an endeavor in the medical sciences, and I was certainly not expecting to find that kind of "dirt." The article turned up in my search results, almost immediately. (So much for Alcor's "exhaustive background checks.") Prior to finding the offensive article, I was encouraged by the news that Alcor had a new leader. In fact, I had asked at least two people, acquainted with Mr. More, to ask him to consider my comments about the equipment and personnel issues.

I'll admit that, as a mother, I did have a "knee-jerk" response to his article. Later, I thought maybe it was inappropriate of me to have indicated I felt Mr. More was "promoting" pedophilia. I've read, and re-read, the article, many times, and no matter how open-minded I try to be about it, for all intents and purposes it reads like an endorsement of pedophilia. What other conclusion can be had from a comment like this:

"As I have argued above, non-coercive sex with juveniles is not immoral -- it is merely a matter of preference,as is bisexuality or homosexuality, oral sex, etc.." (Max More's ephasis on the word "not.") From: SEX, COERCION, AGE OF CONSENT by MAX O’CONNOR 1981: Libertarian Alliance; Max O’Connor; ISBN 1 85637 190 5

One of Mr. More's friends asked me, why I did not "ask Max" about the article, before commenting on it. My answer to this is, "Why? So he could have removed it from the Internet, before anyone read it?"

What is also disturbing, to me, is I heard the "adults should be allowed to engage in consensual sex with children" argument, from another cryonicist, (an acquaintance of Mr. More), just a little more than four years ago. Then, there's Swank and's all too much, really!

All this has been very disturbing, to me, as a mother, and simply as a human being, and I'm hoping Mr. More and/or Alcor will see fit to publish some sort of response, instead of simply removing the offending article from the public view and threatening me with litigation.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Alcor's CEO, Max More's Articles on Luciferianism and Pedophilia

Someone...ANYONE...please tell me this is April first, rather than January first, and that there is a cruel joke being played on Alcor members.

Someone sent an email, to me, referring me to what is, allegedly, Max More's (Max O'Connor's), "most famous article":
(Mr. More is the recently-appointed CEO of Alcor Life Extension Foundation.)

Yes, I read the introduction, of his article, in which Mr. More explained he's not really "implying the real existence of any of these supposed beings," and I get that he was simply protesting against irrational religious dogma, but I didn't quite understand why he repeatedly seemed to be indicating he DOES believe these are real beings, with very specific comments such as these:

"My praise of the Devil is not entirely (though it is mostly) serious...

The truth may just as easily be that Lucifer resigned from heaven...

God, being the well-documented sadist that he is, no doubt wanted to keep Lucifer around so that he could punish him and try to get him back under his (God's) power. Probably what really happened was that Lucifer came to hate God's kingdom, his sadism, his demand for slavish conformity and obedience, his psychotic rage at any display of independent thinking and behavior. Lucifer realized that he could never fully think for himself and could certainly not act on his independent thinking so long as he was under God's control. Therefore he left Heaven, that terrible spiritual-State ruled by the cosmic sadist Jehovah, and was accompanied by some of the angels who had had enough courage to question God's authority and his value-perspective..."

(Why make up such an elaborate counter-Christian story, if one doesn't believe these beings exist?)

"God and his Godists hate Lucifer's call for rationality...

God also hates us to enjoy ourselves, If we let ourselves experience too much pleasure then we might lose interest in obeying him...

Join me, join Lucifer, and join Extropy in fighting God and his entropic forces with our minds, our wills, and our courage. God's army is strong, but they are backed by ignorance, fear, and cowardice. Reality is fundamentally on our side. Forward into the light!"

After reading Mr. More's article, I had a laughing fit. Think about it...Saul Kent, and others, whining away, decade-after-dacade, about the failure to promote cryonics, and Alcor appoints someone sure to offend the majority of the world's population, as CEO. You've got to admit, that's pretty funny. I'm serious...I'm not trying to "jerk anyone's chain"...that's funny as hell, and to be honest, I was still willing to give Mr. More the benefit of the doubt, in regard to his ability to do something productive, at Alcor. Then, thinking I might have a few more laughs, I made the mistake of deciding to look up some more of Mr. More's writings, (listed on his own website) and came across an article he wrote, about having sex with children:
(*Edit: This link is broken, allegedly at the request of Mr. More. Try here: )

Some quotes from Mr. More's "Sex, Coercion, and The Age of Consent":

"It is difficult to comprehend how merely becoming friendly with a child, and then encouraging him or her to indulge in sexual activities, can be a violation of rights..."

Does it really matter whether the child has any understanding of sex?... Apparently, Mr. More is too stupid to realize PEOPLE CANNOT CONSENT TO SOMETHING THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND

"If there is nothing objectionable about an adult giving a child sweets or toys, why is giving sexual pleasure wrong?...

Below the age of twelve or so, a child may not be particularly interested in seeking sexual relations but that doesn't mean he or she will not voluntarily accept and enjoy them...

As I have argued above, non-coercive sex with juveniles is not immoral--it is merely a matter of preference..."
(*Edit: This link is broken, allegedly at the request of Mr. More. Try here: )

Does Mr. More really think sex can be "consensual," between a child and an adult, given the inherent power imbalance? How many children does he expect to actually say "no" to an adult, usually someone who is supposed to be taking care of them? Oh...never mind...I forgot...he expressly DOES NOT CARE if they understand what is BEING DONE TO them. I suppose convincing little ten-year-old girls to "play doctor" might be easier than getting action from grown women. (Extreme sarcasm, written in disgust.)

Children who are coerced into childhood sexual encounters often grow up like "Cryogirl," someone who appears to place her entire self-worth on having every man she meets finding her sexually attractive. Does Mr. More understand the biochemistry of sex, and how such activity might disrupt a developing mind? Mr. More is a whack job, and the people who decided to appoint him as the CEO of Alcor, are a bunch of idiots. (My apologies to my family, friends, employers, co-workers, and anyone else who is offended by my words but, as a mother, I am finding it quite impossible to behave civilly.) ALCOR...ARE YOU PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MINDS?!!!!! I'm tired of this tabloid journalism...could you help me out, here, and hire someone with an appropriate background and a good reputation, so we could actually GET TO DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE of cryonics???