Impersonating a Physician in Arizona

32-1455. Violation; classification

A. The following acts are class 5 felonies:

1. The practice of medicine by a person not licensed or exempt from licensure pursuant to this chapter.

2. Securing a license to practice medicine pursuant to this chapter by fraud or deceit.

3. Impersonating a member of the board in issuing a license to practice medicine to another.

B. The following acts if committed by a person not licensed under this chapter or exempt from licensure pursuant to section 32-1421 are class 2 misdemeanors:

1. The use of the designation "M.D." in a way that would lead the public to believe that a person was licensed to practice medicine in this state.

2. The use of the designation "doctor of medicine", "physician", "surgeon", "physician and surgeon" or any combination thereof unless such designation additionally contains the description of another branch of the healing arts.

3. The use of the designation "doctor" by a member of another branch of healing arts unless there is set forth with each such designation the other branch of the healing arts concerned.

4. The use of any other words, initials, symbols or combination thereof which would lead the public to believe such person is licensed to practice medicine in this state.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/32/01455.htm&Title=32&DocType=ARS

(Emphasis added.)

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.

Why I Believe Cryonics Should be Regulated

About four-and-a-half years ago, I stumbled into the world of cryonics. It was a cosmic accident, of sorts; I REALLY needed a job, and there was an ad on Monster.com, for a position at an alleged research company, doing something related to perfusion. The company turned out to be Suspended Animation, a cryonics facility located very near my home, so I forwarded my resume. When I answered the ad, I was told the position, (a management position), had already been filled, but they were interested in my perfusion background, so they invited me to do some consulting work. I was told SA's "research" mostly consisted of building equipment for performing cryopreservations, and was assured all their activities were perfectly legal.

Having participated in surgical procedures, which require cooling people to a state of "death," for short periods of time, for certain repairs to the aorta, I probably find the notion of cryonics a little less bizarre than most. On top of that, I truly believe people should have their last wishes carried out, if at all possible and legal, no matter what those of us left behind want for them. I accepted the consulting work, which mostly consisted of answering their questions about perfusion, and building some very simple perfusion circuits. A short time later, I was offered a very well-compensated fulltime position, which I also accepted. It was a mere five months, before I walked away, in total disgust.

Fairly early on, it became clear to me that these people were simply trying to build equipment for performing procedures, which are fundamentally the same as procedures that have been performed in heart surgery for many decades. Suspended Animation wanted to gain vascular access, and replace the blood of their recently-deceased clients, (people who had made arrangements for cryopreservation), with an organ preservation solution, while cooling them down to near zero degrees Celsius. After that, they were to transport the bodies to another cryonics facility, (either Cryonics Institute in Michigan, or Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Arizona), where the bodies would be perfused with a cryopreservative solution, and cooled to cryogenic temperatures, before being placed in storage.

When I tried to convince my manager that the equipment SA needed to perform these procedures already existed, I was met with a tremendous amount of resistance. I wanted to believe that person was simply ignorant of vascular cannulations and perfusion and the related equipment, but it was impossible to believe that, for very long. It soon became quite clear to me that he did not want to use existing equipment because the "research" we were doing was the construction of HIS designs. Not only were his designs vastly inferior to existing equipment, but they were exponentially more expensive than existing equipment, due to the man-hours involved. He was easily making six figures, and he was paying several people, very generously, to assist him with his "R&D" projects, none of which would have made sense to anyone familiar with the medical procedures SA was trying to deliver. (He was also engaging in adolescent, manipulative behaviors, such as asking his employees to spy on one another, and coercing them into allowing him to use their email addresses, to support his own projects and further his political agendas.)

At first, I was unaware of the amount of money involved, so when I was told SA couldn't buy certain equipment, or hire qualified personnel, because such things were "too expensive," I believed those lies. Later, I found out Suspended Animation was receiving over a million dollars a year, from Life Extension Foundation (LEF) / Saul Kent and Bill Faloon. Others at Suspended Animation agreed with me, that the many of the projects were a ridiculous waste of time and money, but at least two of them encouraged me to "play along," so we could all keep collecting our very generous salaries. It's hard to blame them, for wanting that. We could come and go, as we pleased, or sit at our desks playing on the Internet all day, and no one would complain...at least not for so long as we didn't object to the mind-bendingly ridiculous design and fabrication projects, going on in the workshop.

When I left Suspended Animation, I left believing Mr. Kent and Mr. Faloon were the victims of a con artist, who had a few very generously-paid puppets supporting him...that IS truly what I believed. Mr. Faloon had never set foot in the facility, while I was there, and I think Mr. Kent had only visited three, or four, times, usually just for a few hours. I tried to walk away and not look back, but four months after my resignation, I decided I could not sit by, in silence, while a group of laymen, armed with "garage project" equipment, tried to charge $60,000 for procedures, which are normally performed by vascular surgeons and perfusionists, (even if the recipients were already dead). It was "false advertising" in the very least, in my opinion.

I began writing about SA's activities, on the Internet, thinking people in the cryonics community would be appalled, and something would be done about the activities at the small facility, in Boynton Beach, Florida. Imagine my surprise, when someone with the initials "MD" after his name, (someone on the opposite coast of this country, someone who had never worked with me), defended that organization by posting a number of blatant, vicious lies about my activities there. This physician is someone who has been performing surgical experiments for cryonics purposes, on dogs, for many years. His co-workers, at Critical Care Research, in Rancho Cucamonga, California, are said to be three of his family members and they, too, are funded by LEF / Mr. Kent and Mr. Faloon. According to LEF's Form 990s, CCR received in excess of $900,000, in 2008. This person, someone who did not hesitate to publish vicious lies about a medical professional he had never met, (and sees no harm in placing dangerous general anesthetic drugs, such as propofol, in the hands of laymen he does not know), has been earning a bundle, working in cryonics, for many years. He has been caught in numerous lies and mistakes, regarding the procedures Alcor and Suspended Animation are attempting to perform. There's more like him...not physicians, but others who seem willing to misrepresent their capabilities and deceive the public, in exchange for salaries and benefits most REAL medical professionals will never see.

It is no longer possible for me to believe what I witnessed was an isolated bit of corruption, and the picture gets bigger, by the year. It's also no longer possible for me to think of Mr. Kent and Mr. Faloon as victims; they can't possibly be THAT blind to what goes on at their organizations. Just recently, Mr. Kent has been associated with a new push to market cryonics in Europe, with the leader of that effort being a silly young man who has held positions of power in the Church of Satan, and the Temple of Vampires. The new cryonics "leader," someone who seems to be supported by Saul Kent and Ben Best, is not a medical professional, or a scientist, but a known cult member in organizations thought, by most, to be nothing more than pyramid schemes? That's beyond ridiculous, and it makes it VERY hard to believe Mr. Kent, Mr. Best and their peers are actually interested in advancing the science of hypothermic medicine.

For forty years, cryonics "research" has primarily consisted of laymen attempting to build equipment that already exists, and laymen trying to train other laymen how to perform the tasks of paramedics, perfusionists, and vascular surgeons...much of this time with the benefactors having ample funding to provide the real thing, in regard to both equipment and personnel. Organizations such as Alcor and Suspended Animation, which want to charge $60,000 to $150,000, (not to mention other extra charges, or years worth of membership dues), are not capable of preserving brains and/or bodies in a condition likely to be viable in the future. People associated with these companies, have been known to encourage people, not only to leave hefty life insurance policies with their organizations listed as the beneficiaries, to pay for these amateur surgical procedures, but to leave their estates and irrevocable trusts to cryonics organizations.

Some cryonicists make the seemingly-valid argument that people like Saul Kent and Bill Faloon contribute MILLIONS of dollars, each year, to cryonics organization, with no return. To be honest, I really can't figure it out, but something is seriously wrong with two allegedly-stellar businessmen, to be funding what appears to be mostly a scam. Then, again, the "tipping point" to earn money, at those prices, (not to mention the donations of irrevocable trusts, and bequests), must be relatively low. My guess is, even a small percentage of the funerary business must be worth exponentially more than they have been putting into their cryonics ventures.

Again, I have no problem with people receiving their last wishes. If people want to be cryopreserved, I think they should have that right. BUT...companies should not be allowed to deceive people who wish to be cryopreserved. They should not be allowed to publish photos of what looks like medical professionals performing surgery, but in actuality, is a group of laymen playing doctor with a dead body...people whose incompetency will result in their clients being left warm (and decaying), for many hours while they struggle to perform a vascular cannulation, or people whose brains will be underperfused or turned to mush, by laymen who have no idea how to properly and safely operate a perfusion circuit. Cryonics companies should not be allowed to refer to laymen as "Chief Surgeon," "Surgeon," "Perfusionist," when these people hold no medical credentials. IT'S FRAUDULENT.

It is time for legislators, (both here, in the US, and abroad), to recognize cryonics scams, and to restrict laymen from performing surgical procedures on dead bodies, (I don't know why licensed embalmers, (other than those in the State of Michigan), haven't already done something about this. Maybe the numbers just aren't big enough to worry them, yet.) It's also time for regulators to sanction medical personnel who enable laymen to have access to dangerous prescription medications, and engage in other unethical activities, related to cryonics. It's time...it's past time.

Charles Platt's Excuse for Cryonics Fraud

On Cold Filter, Charles Platt writes: "I believe the original rationale for referring to cryopreserved human beings as "patients" was to remind all those involved that the human beings are not necessarily irreversibly dead, and therefore should be treated with the same care and conscientiousness as if they were everyday patients." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1287543217/the+reason+for+the+neologism

And the excuse for referring to people like Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz, Catherine Baldwin and many others, (some who may have no more formal education than a high school diploma), as "surgeons" is to remind people of what? It's not to "remind" people of anything; it's to DECEIVE people.

If Platt thinks people being cryopreserved "should be treated with the same care and conscientiousness as if they were everyday patients," why did he send a golf pro and two fabricators from SA's workshop, (three people with NO medical educations, or experience, whatsoever!), to perform advanced medical procedures??? Is that the kind of care HE wants, if he ever shows up at an emergency room, in need of heart surgery? (The procedures Platt sent three laymen to perform are fundamentally the same as procedures performed in open-heart surgery.)

Alcor and Suspended Animation refer to people as "surgeons" and "patients," along with all those images of people in surgical settings, wearing surgical garb, to create the illusion of medical professionals performing cryonics procedures, and that is FRAUDULENT.

(Note: Alcor's photos appear to be of people, (mostly laymen, I believe), actually attempting to perform medical procedures on the deceased, while Suspended Animation's photos are staged photos of laymen pretending to be performing medical procedures.)

Let's not forget Suspended Animation's manager and pseudo-surgeon, Catherine Baldwin, clumsily using a barrage of medical terminology, in what appears to be an attempt to deceive the public, regarding the quality of SA's services:
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/09/catherine-baldwin-just-another.html
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/10/impersonating-physician.html

And, let's not forget all the mistakes Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor, Steve Harris MD, has made, in regard to medications and hypothermic medical procedures.
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-misinformation-from-alcors-chief.html
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/07/alcors-chief-medical-advisor-displays.html

Irrational Arguments for the Current Practices of Cryonics Organizations

While I was impressed with "Fundie's" sentimental rationalization for uploading, yesterday, (see my previous blog entry), I found one of his other arguments completely insane. He was writing in response to my accusations that the personnel of Alcor and Suspended Animation have been falsely presented, to the public, as physicians, something I believe is illegal.

He writes:
"As for the use of words like physician, patient, etc., definitions are *subjective*. Melody may not believe that, but her personal opinion on the subject is not sufficient justification for infringing the liberty of others. Even if the whole of "the medical community" agrees on a definition, that still doesn't make that definition objective. Even if 99.9% of society agrees, that still does not make the definition objective.

I am arguing that people have the right to go to witch doctors if they want to, and to call them doctors if they want to, and Melody has the right to try to persuade them not to, but not to interfere with what they do and say."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1287159088/No+response+other+than+more+threats

I'm sure most RATIONAL people see how Fundie's (irrational) rationalization does not apply to my complaint. Yes..."people have the right to go to witch doctors if they want to, and to call them doctors if they want to," BUT those witch doctors had best NOT be presenting themselves as physicians, because that would be illegal. I can call my mechanic "The Car Doctor," or my husband "Doctor Strangelove," if I want to, (just teasing, honey), but those two people cannot go around presenting themselves, or each other, as physicians. There's nothing "*subjective*" about that, the law is very clear.

If Alcor and Suspended Animation want to disclose (in BIG BOLD LETTERS on the home pages of their websites, and the front pages of their legal documents), that most of the people performing their medical procedures have little-to-no formal medical training, and some have nothing more than a high school diploma, and people still want to pay $60,000 to $150,000, (sometimes even more), for one of their procedures, I'm fine with that. Always have been, always will be.

HOWEVER, if Alcor publishes a case report, with photographs of people dressed in surgical garb, performing surgery, and in that case report they list their personnel with titles such as "Chief Surgeon," and "Assistant Surgeon," when the only known degree between those people is a BA in Philosophy, (someone please correct me, if I am wrong, in regard to Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz and Jerry Leaf), I say Alcor is attempting to defraud their members and potential members, into believing their personnel are physicians. When Catherine Baldwin describes herself, in a public document, as the "backup surgeon," I believe she is falsely presenting herself as a physician, with the intention of defrauding Suspended Animation's clients and potential clients.

When Fundie goes on to ponder whether everyone should agree with my views on same sex marriage, skin graft surgery, and religion, it's obvious he's desperately trying to create some sort of distraction, rather than address my accusation of cryonics organizations misrepresenting their personnel as actual medical professionals, when they are most often are not. Fundie REALLY shows his desperation with comments like, "Should we just run everything we do and say by Melody first?" Does Fundie think I don't have a a right to express my viewpoints on topics related to medical procedures and medical ethics with which I am familiar, and does he really believe I expect everyone to agree with me, on ANY given topic? Not likely. He's just trying to distract from the matter at hand. He KNOWS my complaint is valid, and especially of concern to lawmakers and regulators, given that some people associated with the organizations I am complaining about, not only ask for large fees for their shoddy services, but encourage people to leave irrevocable trusts and donate their estates to organizations such as Alcor.

]10/18/2010 EDIT: I removed the comment that "Fundie" misrepresented my viewpoints on things such as same sex marriage and skin grafts. He had written "should not be illegal" and I read "should be illegal." I'm fairly liberal in my thinking. I even think people have the right to pay six figures for a crappy cryopreservation...I just don't think the companies providing those crappy services have the right to misrepresent the quality of their services, or the qualifications of their personnel, to an unsuspecting public, and I believe that is EXACTLY what Alcor and Suspended Animation have been doing, for a very long time.

Identifying One's Self as a Physician

The laws are pretty strict, when it comes to identifying one's self as a "doctor." I used to know a young man, who was an optometrist. Upon graduation from optometry school, he had his personal checks printed with "Dr. John Doe," and he signed his name that way. One day, he received a very official letter, stating he would suffer some serious consequences if he continued to indicate he was a "doctor," without acknowledging he was an optometrist. In other words, he was required to add "O.D." at the end of his signature, so people would not mistake him for a medical doctor.

So, how is it Catherine Baldwin, Mike Darwin, or anyone else performing cryonics procedures can be identified as a "surgeon," in a report meant for the general public/potential clients? One must be a physician, to be a surgeon, so in a way, Alcor and Suspended Animation seem to be falsely identifying people as physicians, when some of these people have had no formal medical training, AT ALL. Some of their most "qualified" "surgeons" have been veterinarians. Shouldn't cryonics organizations be required, by law, to provide the qualifications of anyone they refer to as a "surgeon" (physician).

Alcor Membership Dues (Passive Resistance)

Why would anyone pay dues to Alcor? They've proven, time-and-time-again, there's really no need to. Just throw a grease-stained note in your trunk, and find a relative to promise payment to Alcor in the event of your demise. Alcor will rush right over, to pick you up in a private jet. (Or does that only work for legendary baseball heroes?) Did Ted Williams ever pay membership dues? Not that I know of, so why should anyone else?

How about Mary Robbins? Was she paying Alcor membership dues, just prior to her death? Her family claimed she had changed her mind, about cryopreservation. Wouldn't knowledge, regarding whether she had been paying her Alcor dues, or not, have been evidence of her continued interest, (or lack, thereof)? Alcor successfully argued, in a court of law, that Ms. Robbins' contract was required to be revoked in writing, which it had not been. So, Alcor was able to collect their "anatomical gift," even though they, subsequently, elected not to pursue the collection of the cryopreservation fee. Interesting! Ms. Robbins may have been paying her dues, but she didn't pay for her cryopreservation. Fancy that! Why should anyone pay Alcor, for anything, since they are so willing to give away their services? What other companies, (if any), operating under the UAGA, requires people to pay for "donating" an anatomical "gift," anyway? That's bizarre.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it true that a party cannot use an argument to win a legal decision, and then use the same argument to win a contradictory decision, in another court? (I think there's a name for this...I just can't think of it, at the moment.) In other words, Alcor won the battle over the possession of Ms. Robbins' "anatomical gift," by proving she had not revoked her gift, in writing. So, I'm wondering, if someone else, (or everyone else, for that matter), who has made arrangements for an Alcor cryopreservation, was to quit paying their membership dues, how successful would Alcor be at arguing that they were not obligated to perform a cryopreservation, because a person had failed to pay their membership dues? Maybe Alcor can cancel their contracts, in writing. Would they? If they have John Doe signed up for a $150,000 procedure, and he doesn't pay his "$478 annually or $120 quarterly," do they cancel his contract, in writing? It's a fascinating question, isn't it?

"Transparency" is a word you hear, a lot, in cryonics. How transparent is it, to fly across the country to pick up a celebrity, who has never paid a penny in membership dues, or bothered to fill out Alcor's paperwork? Pretty darn transparent, if you ask me. How transparent is it, to accept other last-minute cases, performing procedures for people who have never paid membership dues? Crystal clear, again, in my opinion. So, I ask, "Why should ANYONE pay Alcor's membership dues?"

Of course, the REAL question is, "Why should anyone pay Alcor for their pseudo-medical procedures, at all?" For $150,000, you might get something like a dialysis tech playing vascular-/neuro- surgeon, and something like this: http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-of-alleged-ted-williams-case.html By the way, how much did they make Ted Williams' family pay? According to several accounts, they accidentally cut off his head, making him a "neuro" case, even though his son had signed him up for the "whole body" procedure, which costs nearly double the price of a "neuro." (Current Alcor prices are $80K for a "neuro," and $150K for a "whole body.")

Alcor has been around for approximately 40 years, and it looks, to me, like they charge some really high fees, while not promising anyone with even a high school diploma, much less any sort of medical credentials, will show up to attempt to preserve their members' brains. Their Chief Medical Advisor has proven over, and over, and over, again, he doesn't have a complete understanding of vascular cannulations and perfusion, (the medical procedures required to deliver preservative solutions to all the cells of the body). What a joke.

I think it's time for Alcor to improve their services, and thinking along those lines, maybe it's time for some "passive resistance." After all, "money talks," so maybe there are Alcor members out there, willing to let their membership dues speak to Alcor's directors. OH...and if you get some polite request, from Alcor, asking you to sign documents, revoking your cryopreservation contract...well, I suggest you make note of the Williams' and Robbins' cases, and other "last-minute-not-really-signed-up-for-Alcor's services" cases, and consult with your attorney.

Alcor's "Trade Secrets" - Vitrification Solution Recipes

Alcor has been claiming "trade secrets," all over the place, in their lawsuits, against Larry Johnson, et. al. Personally, I don't think they have many, if any, trade secrets. Nothing in the book, (see link at top right of this blog), appeared to be a trade secret, and Johnson has no way of knowing what they have been doing during the last six-seven years, other than what Alcor has made available to the public. As for their "top secret" recipes, here's where anyone can find a few of those:

"Vitrification agents in cryonics: M22," an article by Aschwin de Wolf, on his "Depressed Metabolism" blog: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/07/08/vitrification-agents-in-cryonics-m22/

Includes the recipe for "M22," as follows:

"Dimethyl sulfoxide 2.855 M
Formamide 2.855 M
Ethylene glycol 2.713 M
N-methylformamide 0.508 M
3-methoxy-1,2-propanediol 0.377 M
Polyvinyl pyrrolidone K12* 2.8% w/v
X-1000 ice blocker* 1% w/v
Z-1000 ice blocker* 2% w/v
Total Molarity 9.345 M"
(May be missing one "proprietary" ingredient, but I doubt Johnson knows what it is.)

Here's an old (1995) Mike Darwin/Federowicz Cryonet post, which contains a recipe for "MH2":
http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=4474

Here's the "competition," (Ben Best/Cryonics Institute), linking to the MH2 recipe in the Darwin/Federowicz post: http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/protocol.html
Scroll down and look for the links, under "IV. BLOOD WASHOUT & REPLACEMENT", and then click on the embedded links, where you see, "(For the formula of MHP-2 see Table II of CryoMsg 4474 or Table VII of CryoMsg 2874 — which also contains the formula for Viaspan in Table V.)"

Alcor has claimed they need to be protected from their "competitors," but that's ridiculous. Cryonics Institute is their only "competition," and I believe they share a lot of information. The president of CI, Ben Best, was at Alcor, about a year ago. They made him sign an NDA, so I assume they showed him some of their "secrets." Otherwise, why would he have had to sign an NDA, and what was the point of inviting their so-called "competition" for a show-and tell if they are concerned about the "competition," anyway?

Recently, Alcor had to post a $10,000 bond, in New York, in case the current restraining order turned out to be "wrongful and without sufficient cause." The restraining order, as I read it, only forbids Johnson from disclosing confidential information and/or trade secrets, which are not in his book. I would say it's extremely unlikely Johnson knows any of Alcor's "confidential information," or "trade secrets," and Dr. Brian Wowk seems to agree with me, in his December 8, 2009 affidvit, which states, "Mr. Johnson has not been employed at Alcor for 6 years, and Mr. Johnson does not know how Alcor currently operates its business..." https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=hU2t/NCvOlD3RneOfm44gA==&system=prod

It looks like that restraining order is, most likely, "without sufficient cause."

Review of Alleged Ted Williams Case Reports Printed in Johnson's Book

Someone related to Ted Williams recently asked for my remarks on the alleged case report for Ted Williams, which was printed in Larry Johnson's book. There are too many spelling and grammatical errors to make sense of much of it but, in my opinion, it clearly paints yet another very clear image of the glaring incompetency rampant in cryonics. Even laymen should be able to see the unprofessionalism in most of it. From the alleged TW case notes, published in Johnson's book:

"Mike is trying to do something on the right." (Brilliant record taking!)

"Mike needs a curving knife!" (No comment necessary.)

"Mike is trying to seal up (the tubes?)" (This person does not have a clue what she is describing, other than Alcor's incompetent staff hacking someone's head off and trying to perfuse it.)

"They are trying to open up some part on the front neck..." (More of the same.)

"...Mike murmured "We need electric curving knife..." (Maybe Mike should have been a chef.)

"The head was completely detouched." (No comment necessary.)

"Mike said lots of drainage coming out from everywhere but not from the jugular..." (If this is accurate, it seems blood was coming out from everywhere EXCEPT where it was supposed to be.)

"Brian said we are not getting any cryoprotectant in the venous. Mike back to the head." (It seems they were putting cryoprotectant in the arterial side, but it wasn't coming out the venous side, as it should.)

"Mike called Jose. Jose came back in. (It seemed to me Jose didn't complete his job.)" (How would Erico Narita know if anyone had completed a surgical task? Her notes make it quite clear she has little knowledge of the procedures and equipment. Throughout the report, I believe she uses various terms, such as "canyon," for "cannula." If Alcor assigns their note-taking to someone who has yet to master the English language, (much less applicable medical terminology), how can we even begin to trust them to assign medical tasks to the appropriate personnel?)

The pressure changes, the pump "making funny noises," Mike noticing one of the tubes is "not getting any fluid," the "reflectometer" that "had air" all seem to indicate air was pumped during the case, (something I'm told happens during most cryopreservations, a grossly negligent perfusion error that has been virtually non-existent, in conventional medicine, for decades).

"No air is coming out from the left side as well, Brian noted." (Just guessing from the phrasing, I would say "No" was supposed to be "Now." Either way, it most likely indicates that air was being pumped into, and exiting the vessels, at some point in time...a definite perfusion "no no.")

"The part of the flowrate was incorrect, because bypass line was open." (There's a bypass line that should be closed, when flowing to the patient. When the bypass line is open, a portion of the flow that is supposed to be going to the patient is being diverted to the venous (return) line, without ever reaching the patient. It's not clear when they turned on the perfusion pump, as it's not always clear as to what flows and/or pressures they are referring to, but they document starting the ramping of the cryoprotectant agent, at 22:02. No one noticed the bypass line was open, (a perfusion error), until sometime between 23:21 and 23:27, more than an hour later (79-85 minutes later). Does this seem acceptable for a company that had been in existence for approximately THREE DECADES??? Does this seem like a company that should expect people to believe they can preserve the "legally dead" well enough to be awakened in the future??? Would YOU pay THEM $150K to take perform your cryopreservation?

(The "Mike" being referred to is Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz.)

ABC Nightline Received False Information on Behalf of Alcor

There is a well-known story, in cryonics, about an HIV+/AIDS, patient, whose death was allegedly hastened by staff member(s) of Alcor. I've heard the story, I believe it was told in Kunzman's book, (Mothermelters). Larry Johnson told the same story, in his book, and he has audiotapes of an Alcor staff member discussing it. They played those tapes on ABC Nightline, last night. They also said someone claiming to be that patient's nurse called in, yesterday, to claim the patient died in his bedroom, with only the nurse and his partner present. I can only find one 1992 Alcor case report, in which an HIV+/AIDS, patient died, and it is very well-document BY ALCOR, that that patient died in a garage, just as Johnson and others have said.

From the Alcor Case Report for Case A-1260, in May 1992:
(Note: As per Alcor's report, "Nick" is a fictitious name.)

"The only feasible location for set-up was a garage located about 60 feet from the front door up a steep street. Considering that it took us over two minutes to move the last patient about six feet, there was concern over the ischemic time such a move would cause if Nick were pronounced in his bed.

That day, with Jim's assistance, Hugh and Keith cleaned out the garage, moved in several oxygen bottles, built a plastic enclosure large enough to hold the MALSS cart by stapling plastic sheeting to the ceiling beams, and installed 2000 watts of lighting. Typically, this would not be necessary, since most houses have at least one doorway that will admit the MALSS cart. So, while it was kind of rough and ready, the nurse who pronounced Nick when the time came commented that he had certainly seen worse set-up's used for operating rooms in Vietnam."
...
The logistics of moving our patient downstairs resulted in more discussion, arguments, and testing than any other aspect of the whole transport. (Mike missed this because he was in the garage priming the MALSS cart.) Keith's suggestion of using a gurney was tried with an empty gurney, but the required 70-degree angle looked so scary that nobody was willing to be a test subject. Hugh`s suggestion of a fireman's carry was ruled out because a slip on the carpeted stairs might seriously hurt both the patient and the carrier. We finally tried and settled on Carlos's proposal, with Max on one arm, Paul on the other, Hugh taking Nick's feet under his arms, and Keith holding his head. We got him downstairs without any problems (good suggestion, Carlos), onto the gurney, and (in our white Alcor lab coats) wheeled him up the street into the garage."
http://alcor.org/Library/html/casereport9205.html

Judging from information on Alcor's website, this appears to be the ONLY Alcor case, in 1992, involving an HIV or AIDS patient:

"1992

A-1260 19 Mar 1992 Neuro Case Report: Alcor handles an HIV case.

A-1171 Michael Friedman 01 Jun 1992 Brain and rest of body stored separately Case Report: An Alcor member is murdered (and worse yet, shot in the head).

A-1184 19 Jun 1992 Whole Body Case Report: Lessons learned from ischemic time that could have been avoided.

A-1367 Jim Glennie 24 Jun 1992 Neuro Case Report: An unusually extensive non-technical report on a near-textbook case See also A Well-Loved Man, a personal account by Jim's wife, Mary Margaret Glennie.

A-1410 James Hourihan 27 Jul 1992 Neuro Case Report: An extended standby in Massachusetts."
http://alcor.org/cases.html

Here are the people who were on the "Transport Team" when A-1260 died:
"Transport Team:

Hugh Hixon: Transport Team Leader, Surgical assistant
Mike Darwin: Oversight, Consultant, Femoral Cutdown
Arel Lucas: Airway Management, Temperature Probe Placement
Tanya Jones, Medications, Scribe
Max More: Scribe, Airway Relief
Paul Wakfer: Logistics Support, Airway Relief, MALSS Monitoring
Carlos Mondragon, Film and Video Recording
Leonard Zubkoff: HLR Operator, Oxygen Supplies Management
Keith Henson, Carpenter Assistant, O.R. Nurse, MALSS Monitoring"
http://alcor.org/Library/html/casereport9205.html

I suggest Nightline tracks down the person who claims to have been the nurse present when the AIDS patient died, with his partner, in his bedroom, and verify the situation, because it seems, to me, that Alcor's only HIV or AIDS patient that died in 1992, died in a garage. Nightline might also use the photos in Alcor's case report, to attempt to verify the location. (There are copies of the case report, in case it disappears from the Internet.)

Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz

Below are my responses to some of Michael ("Mike Darwin") Federowicz' postings on the Cold Filter forum:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1234244535/On+Maxim%27s+Distotions+%26amp%3B+Cryonics+Expertise

Federowicz: Her position also denies the reality that cryonics once had both a professional perfusionist and a licensed hemodialysis technician (with extensive CPB experience) setting the standards and determining the technology used on cryopatients and that both these men used the medical model and, wherever possible, well vetted conventional medical equipment in delivering cryopatient care.

My position is that both these people have publicly claimed to have been "board-eligible perfusionists," when I don't believe either one ever was, and both of them seem to have engaged in other unethical behaviors and perhaps a few cryonics "cover-ups." As far as I know, neither Leaf or Federowicz ever attended an accredited school of perfusion and performed the 100 (live human) clinical cases required to sit for the boards. In "Mothermelters," Alan Kunzman claims Jerry Leaf, (the "professional perfusionist"), was never licensed to work with humans, (whether alive, or dead). Since I think it is unlikely someone would mistakenly think they have met the requirements to sit for the perfusion board exams, (and even more unlikely someone who has met the requirements would neglect to sit for the exams), I have to believe they lied, intentionally. This makes it impossible for me to put much faith in any information they have provided about their activities in cryonics, (or information on ANY topic, for that matter).

In addition, Federwicz publicly claims to have perfused "approximately 1,000 dogs." There is no evidence that many dogs have been subjected to cryonics experiments. My guess is, the number of dogs perfused in cryonics experiments is nowhere near that high. If Federowicz wants to maintain he has done 1,000 dog experiments, I'm sure PETA and other agencies would be interested in seeing the paperwork.

Federowicz: Perhaps most perniciously, her position denies the remarkable and successful research accomplishments attained during this period by these two men, and others working with them, using dogs in a survival model of CPB.

Where is the evidence of these "remarkable and successful research accomplishments"? Thus far, other than the write-ups published in "Cryonics," (Federowicz was an editor of that publication), I have only been able to locate ONE published paper on the cryonics dog experiments. If there have been 1,000 experiments, as Federowicz claims, they must not have been as "remarkable," or "successful," as he thinks.

Federowicz: In 1977 perfusionist and biomedical researcher at UCLA, Jerry D. Leaf, became involved in cryonics and began two organizations with the express mission to develop, validate, and standardize evidence-based procedures for every aspect of cryonics suspension using a medical model.

Former deputy coroner of Riverside, California, Alan Kunzman, publicly accused Jerry Leaf of ordering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars worth of medical equipment, on UCLA's tab, and having it delivered to Alcor. ***In the interest of fairness, I have revised this paragraph.*** Someone I trust has informed me that Alcor did purchase these items from UCLA surplus equipment, but they couldn't produce the receipts at the time because they had been confiscated by Kunzman's office. My informant states it is typical for the metal ID tags to remain on the equipment when it is sold, and I believe that is probably true.

Leaf was also involved in the cryopreservation of Dora Kent, whose death was somewhat suspicious. Allegedly, Saul Kent and Federowicz, (wearing white lab coats and driving a used ambulance with the ambulance company's name still on the side), picked Dora up and drove her to the Alcor facility, where she conveniently died and was cryopreserved, two days later. Leaf and Darwin, foolishly, declared her dead without a physician present and proceeded with a cryopreservation. (None of them had enough common sense to realize people were going to find these activities suspicious?)

According to Kunzman, Steve Harris MD admitted to signing not one, but three, death certificates. He said Alcor wrote up the death certificates and he "just signed them." Though Harris had already admitted to not being at Alcor, at the time of Dora's death, (and this was allegedly confirmed in Mike Perry's journal), Leaf later called the Coroner's office and provided them with a list of names of people who were, allegedly, present for Dora's death, and included Harris.

Federowicz: In short, Ms. Maxim is attacking the very people she says she feels are essential in cryonics while at the same time effectively denying that they once existed *and that a high standard of care (the same as a patient undergoing CPB in hospital at that time) was once the reality, at least in cryonics as practiced by Alcor at that time.*

I am "attacking the very people I feel are essential in cryonics"??? I am NOT. I don't believe people like Federwicz and Leaf, (people who seem to have thought they were above the law, and were willing to engage in some rather questionable activities), are "essential in cryonics," or that a "high standard of care (the same as a patient undergoing CPB in hospital at that time)," has ever been a "reality," in cryonics.

Federowicz: ...of understanding of how cryonics differs from conventional perfusion, and lack of understanding of the fairly large body of knowledge that has been accumulated which is unique to cryonics cases.

I'm quite familiar with the "large body of" speculation that has been accumulated, in regard to cryonics cases, I see more propaganda and narcissistic pride in unproven "accomplishments" than I see actual achievement.

In regard to my comments about flow probes:
Federowicz: Had Ms. Maxim established a dialogue with me this information would have undoubtedly been quickly passed along.

First of all, I do not respect Federowicz enough to seek out his advice, or opinions. Secondly, I didn't need Mike to tell me how electro-magnetic flow meters work. I wasn't sure of the exact composition of CI's solutions, but I was well aware the flow meters would very likely not function properly with those solutions. Regardless, I wanted to demonstrate the pump to Ben, because I felt it would add a margin of safety, for CI's patients. At the time, I believed it was more important for CI to avoid pumping air, and to learn to measure a more accurate patient pressure.

Federowicz: Why is knowing flow so important?...The history of scientific, evidence-based medicine is a testimony to the criticality of vigorously collecting data which is consistently and ACCURATELY collected. That means precision in quantification. Ms. Maxim seems not to grasp this.

Federwicz is in no position to state that I am not capable of understanding the importance of perfusion-related issues, even in cryonics. HE seems not to grasp the fact that he is calling for excellence from people who have little-to-no knowledge about basic perfusion. Does he really expect laymen, with little opportunity to develop clinical skills, to perform perfusion procedures with precision? Get them to stop pumping air to patients, and subjecting patients to inappropriate pressures, and THEN worry about accuracy.

Federowicz: 1) Knowing flows with precision and accuracy (indeed knowing them at all!) was critically important. It is absolutely essential in cryoprotective perfusion because flow rate is the primary perfusion parameter that determines cryoprotective agent equilibration in the patient. Flow is also the primary determinant of cooling rate (along with heat exchanger efficiency and the temperature of the wall water) during in-field CPB of cryopatients. Knowing when the patient will be cold enough to come off the pump is often really important since it can mean catching or missing a commercial flight. Roller pumps give a very consistent flow regardless of temperature, pressure, viscosity or perfusate composition. RPM can be converted directly into flow.

This may seem impressive to laymen, but it's absurd, to me. Cryoprotective agent (CPA) uptake is going to rely on a number of factors, and vary from patient-to-patient. You need a way to accurately measure the actual concentration of the CPA, not try to calculate it by flow rate, which will need to be adjusted, depending on patient pressures. As for the washout procedure, the flow rate, (and, therefore, the cooling rate), is going to be largely dependent on the pressure. It doesn't matter what time the next flight is. Yes, "roller pumps give a very consistent flow regardless of temperature, pressure, viscosity or perfusate composition," (even if the perfusate is AIR)...herein lie the fundamental problems with amateurs using these pumps.

2) It is possible to design TBW systems so that no macro air can be perfused using roller pumps. This was done with the ATP.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the "ATP" at SA, when I first went to work there, was virtually identical to the circuit Federowicz designed, for Alcor, and there was NOTHING on the "ATP" that would have prevented the pumping of macro air.

3) The notion that centrifugal pumps cannot cause physiologically devastating over-pressure injury is incorrect. While centrifugals cannot generate an infinite head of pressure under occluded conditions as can roller pumps, the static pressure of most medical centrifugals under no-flow (occluded arterial or venous line) conditions varies from ~500 to well over 700 mm Hg. Such pressures will NOT rupture the extracorporeal circuit (i.e., explode oxygenators, filters, or blow apart circuit connections) but they can cause tremendous damage to patients.

More distraction. The reality is that, unlike a roller pump, a centrifugal pump will decrease flow in response to increased outlet pressure. If I am perfusing a patient at 60mmHg at 2,000RPM and 3L of flow per minute, and the pressure increases, the flow is going to go down without any adjustment of RPM's and a "low flow" alarm is going to go off, well before the pressures Federwicz mentions are ever reached. A person would have to be TRYING to reach those pressures and ignoring the pump alarms, when using a centrifugal pump. Also, if the people in cryonics wouldn't slide the tubing over every available barb on the connectors, and double-band the connections, I believe the circuit would blow apart, before those pressures were reached.

Federowicz: 4) No cryonics patient, to my knowledge, has ever been air embolized during in-field TBW due to a roller pump or due to pumping the venous reservoir dry.

How many in-field total body washouts has Federowicz been present for? I have a very hard time believing no cryonics patients have been subjected to air embolization in the field, where the conditions are certainly not as good as those at the cryonics organizations, where we know air-embolization of patients is a blunder that occurs with an alarming frequency.

Federowicz: 7) Centrifugal pumps are not acceptable for CPA perfusion and personnel MUST learn how to reliably and safely use roller or other occlusive positive displacement pumps.

I'm not sure this is true. Ben Best and I ran a centrifugal pump with CI's most viscous solution, at temperatures near zero C, without any problem other than those associated with the flow probe, and there are alternatives to using that flow probe to measure flow.

Federowicz:The solution is to have *only properly trained/skilled personnel perform TBW*. Clinical perfusionists are the ideal (with additional training)...

Agreed, but "properly trained" personnel shouldn't be trained by people of questionable capabilities. The "additional training," in regard to the washout procedure, would be minimal and could be carried out using a bucket of water as a "patient." I'm sure the SA staff feels good about themselves for "playing doctor" with a pig, but it was unnecessary.

Federowicz:...but the fact is that any intelligent, motivated person with the right temperament and reflexes can be trained to operate an open circuit TBW system (with the proper safeguards) with a high degree of safety.

Nonsense. There's not enough proper training available, in cryonics, where there is little opportunity for clinical experience.

Federowicz: There was a time when that was done both safely and effectively (if you count me as a non-perfusionist).

Federowicz is a "non-perfusionist." People don't become perfusionists by qualifying for such in their own minds.

Federowicz: I refused to provide CI with a more complex circuit absent extensive training to a level where I was satisfied that the personnel using the system would be reasonably safe.

I have no idea how Federowicz ever convinced himself, much less others, that he is one of the world's leading perfusion experts. (Actually, I do have an idea, judging by the number of times he writes "I did this...I did that...I...I...I..." As I recall, he began his review of SA by comparing himself to some misunderstood mythological god. I only read Kunzman's book, last week, and he had the same opinion as I, regarding Federowicz self-absorption.

Federwicz: Countless CPB cases have been pumped worldwide with roller pumps with a microscopic incidence of air embolism due to the presence of the roller pump, per se; and with excellent outcomes.

As I've written before, ALL CPB cases have introduced microscopic air to the patients, regardless of the type of pump being used. It's absurd for anyone in cryonics to be concerned with the elimination of microbubbles in perfusion circuits, when they haven't even mastered basic perfusion with a level of competency that was achieved in conventional medicine, DECADES ago.

Federowicz: Outside of cryonics, in the world of clinical medicine, I have almost no doubt that centrifugal pumps will become the standard of care...

If this were true, it would have probably happened nearly two decades ago. There are two main reasons why this is unlikely to happen:

1. The cost of a small length of tubing for a roller pump is only a few cents, while the least expensive centrifugal head runs about $80. (They were closer to $150, a decade ago, but I doubt they'll ever be as cheap as a piece of tubing.) With managed healthcare, this will continue to be a factor in the choice of pumps.

2. Occlusive pumps in conventional medicine are components of computerized heart-lung machines that provide automatic flow adjustment in response to changing pressure, and complete shutdown with automatic line clamping in the presence of dangerous pressures or air in the lines, making the safety of the less expensive occlusive systems comparable to that of the significantly more costly centrifugal systems.

Federowicz (in response to me asking why he demanded to know if the SA flow probes worked with their washout solution, and then suggested Mathew Sullivan test the probes with water): I suggested tap water because it is cheap and readily available. If the flowmeter reads tap water flows accurately then it is worth proceeding to test it with perfusate (really expensive) under real-world conditions. I suggested tap water for the same reason you used it in training circuits: it is a cheap liquid which you can pump and which behaves enough like blood for the purpose at hand. If the SCPC flowmeter gives an invalid number for tap water, particularly if it is misleadingly close to a believable flow, then you should proceed with real caution if you proceed at all.

Why do we need to use "a cheap liquid which you can pump which behaves enough like blood for the purpose at hand"? The question wasn't whether the probe would work with blood, (and I assure everyone it would), but if it would work with SA's washout solution. Federowicz' argument for the flow probe to be tested with water was just a foolish waste of time and money (Mathew's time and salary). It should be tested with SA's washout solution.

Federowicz: I'm glad SA has such a fine perfusionist. But, no matter how good this man is, he will almost certainly not have expertise unique to and essential to proper extracorporeal management of cryopatients.

I believe SA claims to have NINE "fine perfusionists," who I am sure have a knowledge base and experience that far exceeds Federowicz'. Regardless, how could ANYONE have "expertise unique to and essential to proper extracorporeal management of cryopatients"? Other than Leaf, cryonics has a long history of reliance on amateurs who seem to think they know a lot more than they really do, a history of pumping air and subjecting patients to inappropriate pressures, and no outcomes to determine if what has been done has been of any benefit, whatsoever.

Federowicz: No patient presenting for clinical CPB even approximates the average cryopatient presenting for TBW and/or asanguineous ECMO. Even within perfusion there are areas of specialization that require additional knowledge and training: extended ECMO, emergency fem-fem CPB, nenonatal and paediatric CPB, and normothermic CPB, to name a few. What is so extraordinary about the idea that cryonics should be the same?

What is "extraordinary," here, is the degree of the "god complex" Federowicz has, and the number of people who have been buying into his alleged expertise, if you ask me.

Federowicz: As just one small example, Ms Maxim had no idea how or why conventional CPB flowmeters worked, or that they would not work in cryonics.

Federwicz assumes I didn't understand how the flowmeters worked. What I wasn't sure of, was the composition of CI's solutions. I knew it was highly likely the flowmeters wouldn't work with CI's solutions but, again, I felt the safety features were worth exploring alternate methods of measuring flow. This exploration cost ME a lot more time and money than it cost CI, and I would do it again, in a heartbeat. I still think the safety of the centrifugal pump would be of benefit in cryonics procedures, especially if amateurs are sitting behind the pump.

There was a time when I held some degree of respect for Federowicz, but that was before I read his narcissistic ramblings and complaints about medical professionals on another forum, before I started studying the dog experiments, before he lied about having been a "board-eligible perfusionist," and before I read Kunzman's book. If you ask me, it's people like Federowicz who give cryonics a bad name.

The "What About Microbubbles?" Syndrome / Cryo-Babble

There's a syndrome I'm well-familiar with, in cryonics. It's a tactic used by many cryo-employees and cryo-consultants, to make others think they know more than they really do, in regard to the conventional medical technologies related to cryonics. Since almost day one of my venture into cryonics, when discussing perfusion, (the technology used to sustain patients during open-heart surgery, and to deliver the washout and vitrification solutions in cryonics), I've been met with the question, "What about microbubbles?"

What about 'em? They're in every perfusion circuit, and there's not much we can do about it. It's highly debatable microbubbles are even worthy of discussion, in mainstream conventional medicine, and they certainly shouldn't be discussed in cryonics, where patients are still, frequently, being filled with massive amounts of air that can be seen with the naked eye. (Which reminds me, one of the world's leading cryo-experts recently wrote about "seeing" microbubbles in some tubing, but that's impossible, as they are "micro"scopic by definition.) Some of the world's leading research scientists have been addressing this issue, for decades, without resolution, so it's unlikely any of the great minds in cryonics is going to resolve it. Why are people who can't eliminate large visible amounts of air being pumped through their patients' vascular system concerned with microbubbles?

Perfusion circuits are dry, before they are primed, and thus far, it's been found to be humanly impossible to get rid of ALL the air. We can minimize the number of microbubbles, but we can't get rid of them, completely. Every patient who is put on a heart-lung machine is, no doubt, subjected to microbubbles. According to the American Heart Association, there were 694,000 open-heart procedures in the US, in 2006.

Given that only a very small percentage of patients qualify for "off-pump" procedures, probably more than 650,000 patients, in 2006 alone, were subjected to microbubbles. I believe the mortality rate in 2006 was probably three percent, or less, (and, keep in mind that the bulk of the patients who don't survive are the emergency cases, not the scheduled cases). Three percent of 694,000, is about 21,000. How many of the approximately 21,000 patients who died had their cause of death listed as being due to micro-air emboli? My guess would be "NONE." Yes, micro-air emboli are thought, by some, to cause neurological sequelae, most likely minor memory problems that resolve, on their own, over a short period of time.

"Air bubbles of less than 30 milliliters are thought to dissolve into the circulation harmlessly. Small volumes do not result in readily detectable symptoms, but ongoing studies hypothesize that these "micro-bubbles" may have some adverse effects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intravenous_therapy

Even if they do have adverse effects, the fact remains that the discussion of microbubbles is irrelevant, in cryonics, where large amounts of visible air are said to have been introduced to a significant percentage of cryonics patients.

I think the "What About Microbubbles?" Syndrome is a concerted effort, on the part of certain individuals, to convince others, (and perhaps themselves), that they are more knowledgeable than they really are. For quite some time now, I have been attempting to get patient care providers in cryonics to avoid pumping gross amounts of air to their patients, and to quit subjecting their patients to inappropriate pressures, (whether too high, or too low). In response to some of my criticisms, I get back nonsense like this:

Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz:
"Ms. Maxim speaks of inappropriately high perfusion pressures in cryopatients. I concur, but would go further and ask these questions of her:
1) What are the safe and appropriate pressures to use in cryopatients during both blood washout and subsequent asanguineous recirculation? Please explain why you have chosen the value(s) you provide.
2) What are the absolute and relative medical contraindications to in-field TBW for cryopatients? 3) What are medical indications and contraindications for extended (> 1 hour) asanguineous extracorporeal support of cryopatients? What are the likely complications and how should they be managed?
4) What are the expected pressures (MAP & CVP) and flows in both acute TBW and ECMO treated cryopatients?
5) What colloids can be used in TBW/ECMO of cryopatients and for what reasons? What colloids are known to be contraindicated and on the basis of what evidence?
6) What FiO2 should be used during TBW and/or ECMO in cryopatients? Why?

Mike's questions fit one of those debate fallacies I can never remember the names of. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, he wants to take the discussion to a level the audience won't understand. No one with an ounce of common sense would expect cryonics organizations that can seldom do a washout or vitrification without pumping visible amounts of air, or subjecting the patient to inappropriate pressures, to address these issues. It's just more "smoke and mirrors." To discuss these issues with most of the people currently employed at organizations like Alcor and Suspended Animation would be rather like standing in the dark ages, trying to discuss rocket science with cavemen. (No offense, Geico.)

Could I discuss these issues with Mike, or others? Some of them, but I believe most of the answers are unknown, at this point in time. At any rate, it would be pointless to discuss this topic, (or other unresolved, complex issues), with an audience of laymen, when with most of the people working in cryonics don't even have the background required to address these issues. How about we just try to get the current cryonics care providers to quit pumping air that can be seen, and stop subjecting stroke patients to inappropriate perfusion pressures, for starters? Maybe we should precede that by eliminating "cryo-babble" which probably causes much more harm in cryonics, than microbubbles.

Of course, if Saul Kent would use the nearly three-quarters of a million dollars a year I estimate he is spending (LEF's money) on SA personnel and consultants, (mostly laymen with little-to-no medical education, or experience), to hire professionals who already know the basics, he wouldn't have to start from ground zero. Add the money he's throwing at CCR and Alcor, and we could have MANY competent standby teams spread out across the country. Instead, we have absurdities like Ms. Baldwin and her mostly under-qualified, inexperienced staff, riding around in the SA cryomobile, attempting to teach other laymen to perform medical procedures on pigs. When are cryonicists going to get tired of organizations like SA making them look like a bunch of fools?

***Note: The two posts immediately prior to this one have been updated.

Critical Care Research Inc.'s (CCR's) Dogs

Here are some numbers on CCR's dog experiments:

Year:............A:............B:

2007...........33............10
2006...........43............19
2005...........47..............6
2004...........46..............5
2003...........34............26
2002...........28............21
2001...........35..............6

TOTAL:.......................93

A = "Number of animals being bred, conditioned, or held for use in teaching, testing, experiments, research, or surgery, but not yet used for such purposes." (Column A not totalled as same dogs were probably included in multiple years.)

B = "Number of animals upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used."

Numbers and definitions from: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/7023_AL-CT.shtml

93 dogs subjected to "pain and distress," over the course of seven years, for what?
What are CCR's accomplishments? Have they contributed anything to medical science, or the science of cryonics? Have the dog experiments in cryonics really accomplished anything that even begins to compare with what was accomplished, decades ago, in conventional medicine? Or, has their greatest accomplishment been to impress the wallets, and potential clients, in cryonics? (More "feel good" psychology?)

How many dogs were subjected to cryonics experiments, before 2001?

Where are CCR's, Alcors' and Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz' studies published? Mike claims to have 1,000 under his belt, where are they?

I've heard and read, many times, about the dogs subjected to an extended period of ischemia, (?17 minutes?), but where is the proof of this?
Was this study ever published? What are the details of this experiment? I was given a mass of information to study, when I was at SA. As I recall, there was a study on dogs included, but I can't remember the details. I DO remember someone mentioning that one of the dog experiments had two variables. As I recall, it had something to do with one dog (or group of dogs) undergoing cardiac arrest at normal temperatures but being provided with flow (via a perfusion circuit), with the other group being cooled and having no flow. Again, my memory fails me, but I'm certain about being told there were two variables. Even my eighth-grader knows an experiment should only have one variable. I'm looking for this document, (and any other documents related to animal experiments in cryonics), if anyone has them, please forward them to me.

***I think a lot of people in cryonics have been overly impressed by reports of dogs being cooled and recovering. This is reflected on CI's "FAQ" page 2-13, where Tim Freeman answers a question regarding hypothermic dog experiments. He writes about Dixie being cooled to 4C, and being perfused with a "synthetic solution." My guess, based on my experience in human circulatory arrest cases, is that Dixie might have fared much the same, without the synthetic solution. Mr. Freeman states that Dixie "made a total recovery," but that's not what I've heard. Maybe, after all those grand mal seizures and horrific suffering, she was eventually able to walk and eat again, but it's difficult to measure neurological damage in a dog. Many human patients have been cooled and arrested for periods exceeding one hour, and have recovered with personality and memory intact. (Note: "Dixie" was an Alcor experiment, but the major players involved in the dog experiments overlap with the other cryonics organizations.)

Where do CCR's dogs come from?
I'm informed CCR breeds dogs for their experiments, and on at least one occasion had to euthanize dogs because they had too many. I believe it is legal to breed animals for research, but I find this practice to be offensive. If you ask me, there's something rather sick about raising puppies, playing with them, naming them (as CCR does), and then subjecting them to pain and suffering, and/or death, (or, worse yet, allowing them to live after they have suffered extreme neurological insult). Why not use dogs that are already scheduled to be euthanized? If these experiments are necessary, (and I have my doubts), why not put the dog out of its misery at the end of the experiment?

How are they kept? (In small kennels? Do they have a place to run and play?)
I have, from a reliable source, that CCR has large clean climate controlled indoor facilities and an outdoor dog run for exercise.

How long are they kept?

Are any of the dogs operated on more than once? (I believe that would be illegal.)
I'm told, from an outside source, the dogs are not subjected to multiple experiments.

What happens to the dogs after the experiments? (Are neurologically damaged dogs being kept as "trophies"?)

Is it humane to subject a dog to experiments that result in neurological deficits and then keep that dog alive? (Question based Federowicz' "Bring Dixie Back" diary entry and Kunzman's remarks on the dogs at CCR.)

Were any of the ten dogs reported in 2007 used to teach perfusion to SA's staff members? (We know the staff members were at CCR for perfusion training. Again, it was insane for anyone to think the staff members of SA could go for a weekend training session, followed by videotaped refresher courses, and could competently perform perfusion. My guess is, CCR/Harris made a lot of money for providing the training session, Platt made a lot of money for the videotaping, and the SA team members got a free trip to California. Just guessing.)

Given that CCR only performed 93 experiments over the course of seven years, I'm still wondering where Michael "Mike Darwin" Federowicz did the approximately "1,000" dog perfusion he claims to have performed. He would have had to do an average of one dog per week, for more than 19 years, to get to 1,000. I think this is extremely unlikely. If he did, I'm sure the animal welfare people would love to see documentation of those experiments.

In searching for CCR's numbers, I stumbled across a 2007 report for 21CM that shows they experimented on 351 rabbits. What were the results of those experiments?
I'm often curious about 21CM, due to the lack of information and the connections between 21CM, CCR and SA. I'm told Kent/LEF provides less than half of 21CM's funding and that they receive substantial government grants for their research, (for conventional medicine purposes, not cryonics, I assume). I'm also told Fahy of 21CM publishes most, if not all, of his work.

"Feel Good Words Like 'Transparency'"

Recently, I was listening to CNBC, and a commentator mentioned "feel good words, like 'transparency.'" (I'm not sure who made the comment, or I'd give him credit.) "Transparency" is certainly a "feel good" word that gets tossed around a lot, in cryonics.

Transparency is a great thing, but only when someone is capable of interpreting what they see. SA consultants Charles Platt and Aschwin de Wolf may have written the most "transparent" cryonics case report, ever, for SA's involvement in the CI-81 case. The problem was, even THEY couldn't "see" what they had written, because they didn't have the appropriate educations, or clinical backgrounds. They didn't have a clue as to how medical professionals with a background in perfusion technology, (the method used to deliver SA's washout solution), would interpret that report. When I, (a perfusionist), pointed out the obvious, SA published an addendum that only supported my accusations. (Why were a science fiction writer and someone with an education in political science, who were not even present for the CI-81 case, be writing the case report, anyway?)

Indeed, cryonics organizations could not be much more "transparent," but what is the result? Them standing around patting themselves on the back, for being "transparent"? When a medical professional points out that the introduction of massive air emboli and the improper pressurization of patients were virtually eliminated in conventional medicine, decades ago, all that comes back is "We're doing the best we can?" and more back-patting for being "transparent"?

I've been chastised on the Cold Filter forum, for running off cryonicists willing to post under their real names. Whom have I run off? A science fiction writer/wannabe engineer who I believe has wasted enormous amounts of money on building makeshift equipment, sometimes when there was existing medical equipment available at a reasonable price? Someone who is publicly, and regulary, called a "liar" even by cryonicists? A physician on the LEF payroll who is willing to publish blatant lies about a fellow medical professional he doesn't even know, and who wouldn't tell laymen to give a patient heparin, unless they knew to ask? People who engage in animal experimentation of questionable merit? A mostly self-taught, self-proclaimed "cryo-expert" who wants to carry on highly-technical discussions the audience won't understand, (not because they are unintelligent, but because they don't have the appropriate background.)

The readers on Cold Filter have frequently remarked that they don't understand Michael ("Mike Darwin") Federowicz' posts, but they still revere him and think he should be employed at one of the cryonics organizations. Do they know why Mr. Federowicz isn't welcome, as an employee, at any cryonics organizations? I believe I do, but it would be "hearsay," at this point in time.

Mr. Federowicz' ramblings are extremely transparent, but few, (if any), in cryonics, see through them. They get blinded by the medical terminology and scientific formulas he throws out. They read "iatrogenic" and Poiseuille's Equation, and then sit around oooohing and aaaahhhhing, thinking they are in the presence of a medical expert.

There are at least several published accounts of Federowicz' career in cryonics, from the time he was a teenager, but I've yet to find one that mentions him attending perfusion school, or working in open-heart surgery. In order to have been "board-eligible," as he claims, Federowicz would have had to graduated from an accredited school of perfusion technology and participated in a minimum of 100 clinical cases, (and I don't believe dogs, or "legally dead" patients count). Eleven days ago, on the Cold Filter Forum, I asked Mr. Federowicz two very simple questions: "Which accredited perfusion program did he attend?" and "Where did he perform the 100 clinical cases required to sit for the boards?" Mr. Federowicz has yet to respond to these simple questions, which don't require in-depth technical discussions, terminology, or scientific equations the audience wouldn't understand. Has he neglected to answer because no amount of "smoke and mirrors," (technical jargon and scientific formulas thrown out to an audience comprised mostly of laymen), can cloud this issue? Did he disappear from the forum due to what the moderator has called my "cheap unimaginative shots," or did he disappear because I asked a valid question he doesn't want to answer?

The way transparency is supposed to work is; someone who can see through the fog points out the obvious, and something gets done about it. When a qualified professional complains, (for nearly two years), that laymen are being paid two-to-four times what their qualified counterparts would be paid, to perform well-established medical procedures, (the tasks of paramedics and perfusionists), someone does something about it. (And, "doing something about it" should not include slandering and libeling the critic.)

Edit on March 2, 2009:
Someone writes to me that the "powers that be" in cryonics "want to be told pleasant lies, all while having the form of brutal honesty." I believe this fits right in with my "Feel Good Words like Transparency" theory.

"Experts" and Animal Experimentation in Cryonics

I've been thinking about animal experimentation, in cryonics, for quite some time, now. I've made comments on this blog, and on the Cold Filter forum, indicating I thought some of the experiments were unnecessary, and I've questioned the amount of suffering that has been inflicted, during cryonics dog experiments. I've never been involved in animal experimentation, in cryonics, so my concerns arise from what I have read, and what I've been told, by others. I've recently stepped up my exploration of animal experimentation, in cryonics, and I don't like what I am finding. (More on that in future posts...for now, I'll just leave you with this: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/bringingdixieback.html)

Cryonics organizations have a history of sending laymen to do their patient procedures, so I find it quite difficult to believe the quality of their animal experimentation to be much better. (If it is, isn't there something wrong with providing quality care for animal experimentation and sending laymen, sometimes with no medical experience whatsoever, to care for human patients?)

I spent the last 30 minutes searching for references to the dog experiments that have been performed at the cryonics organizations, and so far, the only information I have found is that published by the organizations, or people tied to them. In other words, the only people who seem to hold any regard for these experiments, are people tied to the cryonics organizations. The same can be said for the "cryonics experts" who carry out these experiments. As far as I can tell, their work has had little recognition outside the very small community of cryonics.

One of the people mentioned most often, in connection with the dog experiments in cryonics, is Michael ("Mike Darwin") Federowicz. Mr. Federowicz claims to have, at one time, been a "board eligible" perfusionist. I can find no record of him attending an accredited perfusion school, and thus far, he has not responded to my inquiries on this matter. Indeed, I can find no information regarding a post-secondary education, of any kind, for Mr. Federowicz. He was, at one time, a dialysis technician. Though many people in cryonics seem to have been led to believe dialysis is similar to cardiovascular perfusion, those occupations are only very distant "cousins." Dialysis technicians are often "OJT's," working in hospitals, under the supervision of RN's. Dialysis is a relatively simple process, and some patients perform their own (peritoneal) dialysis at home, by themselves. This is hardly a comparison to supporting a patient with a heart-lung machine.

There seems to be a group of "intellectuals" in cryonics who stick their noses in a lot of books and come out thinking they are medical "experts" capable of teaching laymen to perform cutting-edge medical procedures. I've been told Mr. Federowicz is a self-taught man who has become some sort of "leading expert in emergency medicine." Being a "respected contributor" to a "critical care medicine Internet discussion group," and writing a couple of articles hardly qualifies one as a "leading medical expert." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Darwin) I have a serious problem with laymen who dress themselves up in surgical garb, or white labcoats, and think they are the peers of medical professionals and qualified research scientists.

I have spent nearly two years posting on the Cold Filter cryonics forums, and blogging, about what I believe to be an extreme degree of incompetence and unethical behavior within the cryonics community, particularly within the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) funded organizations, which I believe can now be extended to include Alcor. There are some specific individuals I have targeted, for various reasons. Some of those individuals responded to my criticism by posting blatant lies about me, lies which led to one of them hiring an attorney who advised him to retract and apologize.

There is another medical professional, Larry Johnson, who seems to have received much the same treatment as I did, in cryonics. Mr. Johnson is a paramedic who was an employee of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, at the time of the Ted Williams cryopreservation scandal. After Mr. Johnson complained about the activities of Alcor, he was accused of stealing a non-disclosure form that insiders at Alcor have told me he said never existed. Interestingly, the exact same lie was told about me, and I believe that lie was told by the same person.

I first heard of Larry Johnson, when I was working at Suspended Animation, Inc., in Boynton Beach, Florida. I was told he was a liar, and an opportunist just out to "make a buck" on the Ted Williams scandal. Being new to cryonics, and thinking the people I was dealing with were honest and sincere, I took them at their word. Until news of his upcoming book, "Shiver: A Whistleblower's Chilling Expose of Cryonics and the Truth Behind What Happened to Ted Williams," I thought Mr. Johnson was dead, having been told he died in some sort of mysterious motorcycle accident.

Based on stories I have heard, from my friends in cryonics, (or, perhaps, I should say my "former friends"), I have the suspicion that Mr. Johnson is going to make certain accusations against some of the very individuals I, (without even knowing Mr. Johnson was alive), have been accusing of imcompetence and unethical behavior. If Mr. Johnson does name the same individuals I've been criticizing, will the cryonics community finally sit up and take notice, or will they simply vilify Mr. Johnson, and me, and continue to believe in the "experts" who have brought them nothing much more than a very bad public image?

It's fun to believe Santa leaves the presents under the tree, David Copperfield can make an airplane disappear, or that Bernie Madoff is earning high rates of interest on one's money, but sometimes we have to just admit the "wool is being pulled over our eyes."

Larry Johnson's "FreeTed" website.