I used to live in an older community, by the water, (ironically, just a few streets over from Bill Faloon's house). While the small, older, original homes were unimpressive, the property they sat on was very valuable. A lot of the residents wanted larger, more modern homes, so there was always a lot of construction going on. Whenever I would see a contractor's signs in one of my neighbor's yards, I would ask, "Building up, or tearing down?"
Sometimes, a contractor would be able to update the original home, and add a second story. However, some of the foundations simply could not support the larger, more valuable, more attractive, more functional structure, so the original home would have to be demolished. Makes me think of Alcor. What is there to build on?
Showing posts with label Bill Faloon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Faloon. Show all posts
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Bill Faloon is Just as Much of a "Sensationalist" as Larry Johnson
In response to this article, by William Faloon, of Life Extension Foundation: http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/10/16/death-is-gruesome/
I've been wondering, for nearly three years, now, if Bill Faloon was actually aware of the situation at the organizations he has been funding. I even sent a letter to his house, not that long ago, (which went unanswered, of course). Now, he appears with nothing more than the usual "smoke and mirrors" that have spewed forth from Alcor, and the LEF-funded organizations, for decades.
Faloon is comparing cryonics patients to people are being embalmed, buried, cremated, autopsied or decomposing, instead of to patients who undergo circulatory arrest procedures, in conventional medicine, and wake up again. There is no reason for anyone to be concerned with the "gruesomeness" of death, in a cryonics context. Unlike cryonics patients, no one expects the people who are being embalmed, buried, cremated, autopsied or decomposing, to wake up again!!! His entire comparison, (though quite eloquent), is absurd and meaningless. In fact, it's so ridiculous, I can barely bring myself to respond to it. (Maybe he felt the same, about my letter.)
Cryonics has a solid foundation in the hypothermic procedures, which have been performed by heart teams, for many decades. I participated in these procedures, for nearly a decade, myself. There is nothing "gruesome" about performing cannulations and perfusion, (the procedures SA and ALCOR are attempting to perform). Most of the time, it's barely even messy! Why does Faloon want to pretend that the only alternatives to the amateurish cryonics procedures he and his friends have been providing to cryonics patients, are the gruesome processes of death, when the logical alternative is to hire competent individuals who can provide quality patient care equivalent to that provided in conventional hypothermic procedures performed on the living?
(Note: Yes, I realize the "neuros" will be "gruesome", regardless, and personally, I am against the industry decapitating patients. CI, technically, performs "neuros," without decapitation, by isolating the head vessels. If ALCOR insists on doing "neuros," they should consider that route. Even if they insist on decapitation, I don't believe it needs to be anywhere near as gruesome and insane as what I have read about in ALCOR's case reports, but what else can we expect when people, sometimes with nothing more than high school diplomas and maybe a little "OJT," are allowed to chop off heads?)
Faloon: "Reality is that cryopreservation involves complex surgery whereby tubes are inserted into major arteries and veins in order to deliver special anti-freeze solutions into the brain."
The actual reality is that Suspended Animation, (the company Faloon helps fund through Life Extension Foundation, and which is but a short distance from Faloon's home), has been attempting to provide the most simple version of cannulation and perfusion, and failing miserably, for seven years, now. In spite of a grossly-extravagant payroll, they don't even have a staff member who is capable of competently inserting the tubes (cannulae) into major arteries and veins, (performing a femoral cannulation), or performing perfusion. If I were to tell any of the people I have worked with, in heart surgery, that one of the most prominent figures in cryonics is trying to pass off a femoral cannulation and the simple perfusion SA is attempting to perform, as "complex," they would laugh.
Faloon: "Cryonics is merely less gruesome than anything else that is done to a corpse."
Again, Faloon is comparing cryonics patients to corpses, while I would prefer to compare them to my patients in heart surgery, people who had plans to wake up again, after they were cannulated and perfused, (and 96-97% of them did).
Faloon: "I hope this essay helps put cryo-preservation in perspective with more mutilating and appalling forms of disposition that deceased humans are exposed to every day. It should serve to educate the media that ALCOR patients are not being mutilated or “abused” by the complex protocols that are used to provide them with the best scientific opportunity of future revival, whatever the probability may be."
Can Bill Faloon explain exactly why he is willing to fund hiring just about anyone off the street to perform what he calls "complex (medical) protocols," instead of insisting on the hiring of competent professionals? ALCOR patients, and Suspended Animation patients ARE being abused, by the amateurs who "play doctor" with them, and I believe any medical professional who has worked in conventional medicine, performing vascular cannulations and/or perfusion, would testify to that. The Ted Williams case report is only one example of the abuse, and there are plenty of others. http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-of-alleged-ted-williams-case.html (This is not the full report, but the rest of it is just as ridiculously insane.)
I'm still left wondering if Bill Faloon actually knows how atrocious the level of patient care ALCOR and Suspended Animation provide really is. He's either deceptive or in denial, or he doesn't have a clue as to how good these procedures COULD be. He's seen cannulations and perfusion in the context of death, but I've seen them in the context of life. Which do cryonicists want, at the time of their "legal death"...something of the quality that dead people receive, or cannulations and perfusion of a quality such as that provided in heart surgery, (where 96-97% of the patients wake up again)?
I've been wondering, for nearly three years, now, if Bill Faloon was actually aware of the situation at the organizations he has been funding. I even sent a letter to his house, not that long ago, (which went unanswered, of course). Now, he appears with nothing more than the usual "smoke and mirrors" that have spewed forth from Alcor, and the LEF-funded organizations, for decades.
Faloon is comparing cryonics patients to people are being embalmed, buried, cremated, autopsied or decomposing, instead of to patients who undergo circulatory arrest procedures, in conventional medicine, and wake up again. There is no reason for anyone to be concerned with the "gruesomeness" of death, in a cryonics context. Unlike cryonics patients, no one expects the people who are being embalmed, buried, cremated, autopsied or decomposing, to wake up again!!! His entire comparison, (though quite eloquent), is absurd and meaningless. In fact, it's so ridiculous, I can barely bring myself to respond to it. (Maybe he felt the same, about my letter.)
Cryonics has a solid foundation in the hypothermic procedures, which have been performed by heart teams, for many decades. I participated in these procedures, for nearly a decade, myself. There is nothing "gruesome" about performing cannulations and perfusion, (the procedures SA and ALCOR are attempting to perform). Most of the time, it's barely even messy! Why does Faloon want to pretend that the only alternatives to the amateurish cryonics procedures he and his friends have been providing to cryonics patients, are the gruesome processes of death, when the logical alternative is to hire competent individuals who can provide quality patient care equivalent to that provided in conventional hypothermic procedures performed on the living?
(Note: Yes, I realize the "neuros" will be "gruesome", regardless, and personally, I am against the industry decapitating patients. CI, technically, performs "neuros," without decapitation, by isolating the head vessels. If ALCOR insists on doing "neuros," they should consider that route. Even if they insist on decapitation, I don't believe it needs to be anywhere near as gruesome and insane as what I have read about in ALCOR's case reports, but what else can we expect when people, sometimes with nothing more than high school diplomas and maybe a little "OJT," are allowed to chop off heads?)
Faloon: "Reality is that cryopreservation involves complex surgery whereby tubes are inserted into major arteries and veins in order to deliver special anti-freeze solutions into the brain."
The actual reality is that Suspended Animation, (the company Faloon helps fund through Life Extension Foundation, and which is but a short distance from Faloon's home), has been attempting to provide the most simple version of cannulation and perfusion, and failing miserably, for seven years, now. In spite of a grossly-extravagant payroll, they don't even have a staff member who is capable of competently inserting the tubes (cannulae) into major arteries and veins, (performing a femoral cannulation), or performing perfusion. If I were to tell any of the people I have worked with, in heart surgery, that one of the most prominent figures in cryonics is trying to pass off a femoral cannulation and the simple perfusion SA is attempting to perform, as "complex," they would laugh.
Faloon: "Cryonics is merely less gruesome than anything else that is done to a corpse."
Again, Faloon is comparing cryonics patients to corpses, while I would prefer to compare them to my patients in heart surgery, people who had plans to wake up again, after they were cannulated and perfused, (and 96-97% of them did).
Faloon: "I hope this essay helps put cryo-preservation in perspective with more mutilating and appalling forms of disposition that deceased humans are exposed to every day. It should serve to educate the media that ALCOR patients are not being mutilated or “abused” by the complex protocols that are used to provide them with the best scientific opportunity of future revival, whatever the probability may be."
Can Bill Faloon explain exactly why he is willing to fund hiring just about anyone off the street to perform what he calls "complex (medical) protocols," instead of insisting on the hiring of competent professionals? ALCOR patients, and Suspended Animation patients ARE being abused, by the amateurs who "play doctor" with them, and I believe any medical professional who has worked in conventional medicine, performing vascular cannulations and/or perfusion, would testify to that. The Ted Williams case report is only one example of the abuse, and there are plenty of others. http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-of-alleged-ted-williams-case.html (This is not the full report, but the rest of it is just as ridiculously insane.)
I'm still left wondering if Bill Faloon actually knows how atrocious the level of patient care ALCOR and Suspended Animation provide really is. He's either deceptive or in denial, or he doesn't have a clue as to how good these procedures COULD be. He's seen cannulations and perfusion in the context of death, but I've seen them in the context of life. Which do cryonicists want, at the time of their "legal death"...something of the quality that dead people receive, or cannulations and perfusion of a quality such as that provided in heart surgery, (where 96-97% of the patients wake up again)?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
In Kent's Own Words
Saul Kent: "When cryobiologists contend we are damaging
our patients too much to permit future reanimation, we criticize
them for failing to take into account the potential of future repair
methods. In doing so, we fail to appreciate that we are, similarly,
failing to take into account the severity of the damage our
methods cause. Until we have solid evidence that we can
preserve the brain well enough to retain enough information to
maintain our identities, it is inappropriate, I believe, for us to
criticize cryobiologists over their opinion that future repair of
today's frozen patients will be impossible. Without the
evidence that we can effectively preserve ourselves, the
cryobiologists are not only entitled to their negative opinions
about cryonics, but we don't have the slightest chance
of changing their minds!"
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=1222&mode=linear
Kent might, at least, begin to change the minds of cryobiologists, (and others), if he would send qualified, experienced personnel, capable of performing femoral cannulations and perfusion, without causing more damage than is necessary. When he sends a bunch of bumbling amateurs, who take hours to do a simple cannulation, (and, then, probably don't get it right), and doesn't guarantee a qualified perfusionist will show up for the washout procedure, he is subjecting his organization to well-deserved ridicule. The Suspended Animation Inc. (SA) personnel make both Kent and Faloon look rather foolish, like they don't know what they are doing.
Isn't it time for Kent and Faloon to REALLY do "the best they can"?
our patients too much to permit future reanimation, we criticize
them for failing to take into account the potential of future repair
methods. In doing so, we fail to appreciate that we are, similarly,
failing to take into account the severity of the damage our
methods cause. Until we have solid evidence that we can
preserve the brain well enough to retain enough information to
maintain our identities, it is inappropriate, I believe, for us to
criticize cryobiologists over their opinion that future repair of
today's frozen patients will be impossible. Without the
evidence that we can effectively preserve ourselves, the
cryobiologists are not only entitled to their negative opinions
about cryonics, but we don't have the slightest chance
of changing their minds!"
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=1222&mode=linear
Kent might, at least, begin to change the minds of cryobiologists, (and others), if he would send qualified, experienced personnel, capable of performing femoral cannulations and perfusion, without causing more damage than is necessary. When he sends a bunch of bumbling amateurs, who take hours to do a simple cannulation, (and, then, probably don't get it right), and doesn't guarantee a qualified perfusionist will show up for the washout procedure, he is subjecting his organization to well-deserved ridicule. The Suspended Animation Inc. (SA) personnel make both Kent and Faloon look rather foolish, like they don't know what they are doing.
Isn't it time for Kent and Faloon to REALLY do "the best they can"?
Monday, September 7, 2009
Cold Filter Forum is Like SA
At Suspended Animation, (SA), we used to have these staff meetings, where we discussed the on-going projects. Whenever someone objected to any of the projects, the discussion went pretty much nowhere. (And, no, I wasn't the only person objecting to Platt's projects, cryonicists Sullivan and de Wolf frequently had the same objections.) I don't know why we ever bothered to complain, as it was pointless. All that resulted was a lot of cowardly subversion, with Platt recruiting some of his highly-paid RUP's to help him (sometimes secretly) continue the projects, and somehow convincing Kent they were being productive. It's pretty much the same situation, on this forum. I come here and make valid arguments against what SA is doing, and Platt takes impressionable people behind the scenes, in private emails, where no one can refute his claims, and I end up fighting a never-ending battle of one "Luke" at a time. That's in addition to the lies that were told about me, and the personal attacks that were made on me, (and, that's pretty much the same as what went on, at SA, too...Sullivan, de Wolf and I, (and even some of the RUP's, on occasion), were frequent targets of character assassinations).
I've tried to walk away from cryonics, several times. When I quit SA, I didn't have anything to say about them, (other than to my husband and a couple of cryo-friends), for more than four months. I had other dragons to slay, and I really just wanted to put the stupidity of it all (SA) behind me. But, every day I thought about it...about how they were lying about their capabilities, and about how I felt Platt had totally, and absolutely, resisted any change that might have resulted in him logging fewer $50 hours, even if it would have meant we would have been taking steps toward a better level of patient care, and I got more and more angry, until I could no longer ignore the situation.
At some point, I realized how harshly I had treated a couple of people at SA, who are just ordinary people making a lot of money doing what their bosses have told them to do, and I tried to walk away, again. Then, I realized, (all over again), that maintaining the salaries of a few unqualified people does not justify harming patients, not even "legally dead" ones. Some of the people at SA are quite intelligent and talented in other areas, but they don't have the backgrounds required to carry out the procedures SA is selling, and I don't think the cryonics industry should suffer, so that these people can maintain their lifestyles. SA needs experienced people who can gain IV access on patients with no blood pressure, perform femoral cannulations and competently perform perfusion. With the money they have at their disposal, there's no excuse for them to be sending unskilled patient care providers.
Platt, de Wolf and I, (who were all at SA, together), could have probably rocked the world of cryonics, if he hadn't seen Aschwin and me as "the enemy." I had a lot of knowledge about the procedures we were supposed to be doing, Aschwin's talents are obvious on his "Depressed Metabolism" blog, and in addition to his writing and computer-related skills, Platt had a lot of influence with Kent. Unfortunately, Platt didn't want anything to change, at SA, and he fought everything Aschwin and I tried to do, "tooth and nail." Apparently, he was afraid that, if his amateur design and fabrication projects dried up, he would be out of a good income, though I don't think that's true. Platt probably believed deWolf and I simply wanted to get rid of him, but that's not true, either, (at least it wasn't, in the beginning). We just wanted him to do things differently, in ways that didn't defy common sense.
If I had it to do all over again, I would ask Kent AND Faloon to come spend a week in a room with Platt, de Wolf and me, and I would bring along a lot of documentation, and maybe even a medical professional, or two. Unfortunately, we can't go back to that time, and I don't seem to be able to let it go, and I'm really getting tired of fighting this battle one "Luke" at a time, with Platt always behind the scenes. Regardless, I won't walk away, again. I may walk in a new direction, but I won't walk away.
Now, my apologies to the moderator...As I recall, I'm not supposed to mention the name "Platt," but that is what this situation with Luke is all about. It's a replay of the situation, at SA, with me standing in the middle of the room, publicly stating SA's projects are beyond misguided and the cryo-equivalent of medical malpractice, and Platt taking people behind the scenes and convincing them, one at a time, that all is good. There's a reason people like Kent, Baldwin, and Platt won't publicly respond to my accusations of incompetence, and that reason should be quite obvious, to everyone.
I've tried to walk away from cryonics, several times. When I quit SA, I didn't have anything to say about them, (other than to my husband and a couple of cryo-friends), for more than four months. I had other dragons to slay, and I really just wanted to put the stupidity of it all (SA) behind me. But, every day I thought about it...about how they were lying about their capabilities, and about how I felt Platt had totally, and absolutely, resisted any change that might have resulted in him logging fewer $50 hours, even if it would have meant we would have been taking steps toward a better level of patient care, and I got more and more angry, until I could no longer ignore the situation.
At some point, I realized how harshly I had treated a couple of people at SA, who are just ordinary people making a lot of money doing what their bosses have told them to do, and I tried to walk away, again. Then, I realized, (all over again), that maintaining the salaries of a few unqualified people does not justify harming patients, not even "legally dead" ones. Some of the people at SA are quite intelligent and talented in other areas, but they don't have the backgrounds required to carry out the procedures SA is selling, and I don't think the cryonics industry should suffer, so that these people can maintain their lifestyles. SA needs experienced people who can gain IV access on patients with no blood pressure, perform femoral cannulations and competently perform perfusion. With the money they have at their disposal, there's no excuse for them to be sending unskilled patient care providers.
Platt, de Wolf and I, (who were all at SA, together), could have probably rocked the world of cryonics, if he hadn't seen Aschwin and me as "the enemy." I had a lot of knowledge about the procedures we were supposed to be doing, Aschwin's talents are obvious on his "Depressed Metabolism" blog, and in addition to his writing and computer-related skills, Platt had a lot of influence with Kent. Unfortunately, Platt didn't want anything to change, at SA, and he fought everything Aschwin and I tried to do, "tooth and nail." Apparently, he was afraid that, if his amateur design and fabrication projects dried up, he would be out of a good income, though I don't think that's true. Platt probably believed deWolf and I simply wanted to get rid of him, but that's not true, either, (at least it wasn't, in the beginning). We just wanted him to do things differently, in ways that didn't defy common sense.
If I had it to do all over again, I would ask Kent AND Faloon to come spend a week in a room with Platt, de Wolf and me, and I would bring along a lot of documentation, and maybe even a medical professional, or two. Unfortunately, we can't go back to that time, and I don't seem to be able to let it go, and I'm really getting tired of fighting this battle one "Luke" at a time, with Platt always behind the scenes. Regardless, I won't walk away, again. I may walk in a new direction, but I won't walk away.
Now, my apologies to the moderator...As I recall, I'm not supposed to mention the name "Platt," but that is what this situation with Luke is all about. It's a replay of the situation, at SA, with me standing in the middle of the room, publicly stating SA's projects are beyond misguided and the cryo-equivalent of medical malpractice, and Platt taking people behind the scenes and convincing them, one at a time, that all is good. There's a reason people like Kent, Baldwin, and Platt won't publicly respond to my accusations of incompetence, and that reason should be quite obvious, to everyone.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Embalming and Cryonics
Embalm:
1 : to treat (a dead body) so as to protect from decay
2 : to fill with sweet odors : perfume
3 : to protect from decay or oblivion : preserve
4 : to fix in a static condition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embalming
Are Alcor and Suspended Animation illegally "embalming"? (Cryonics Institute is licensed as a cemetery. Their procedures are conducted at a licensed funeral establishment, under the supervision of a licensed funeral director/embalmer, and monitored by the State of Michigan.)
Alcor and Suspended Animation may attempt to defend their activities by calling their procedures "medical research," but I believe any state board familiar with what they are doing, and the qualifications, (or lack thereof), of their care providers, will agree with me that their activities cannot be qualified as "medical research." I say they are (possibly illegally) preserving dead bodies, (embalming).
After a little research, I have ascertained that embalmers must be licensed in all 50 states. I am not going to research the regulations of all 50 states, but the states I have researched all require a formal education, (some from 2 - 4 years), an internship, (most of at least one year), and passing a local and/or national certification exam. Violation of embalming regulations result in possible jail time and/or fines, for each incident, in all of the states I have researched.
After the Dora Kent case, Alcor was accused of murder, illegally practicing medicine, and the theft of equipment from UCLA. None of these accusations held up, but as far as I know, they have never been accused of illegally embalming, a charge I believe would hold up.
As for SA, not only might they be illegally embalming, but in recent years, they have had laymen, (people who would not be allowed to legally administer drugs to patients, or embalm), traveling across state lines, carrying regulated medications, in order to do so.
From Florida Statute 497.368, (with emphasis added):
497.368 Embalmers; licensure as an embalmer by examination; provisional license.--
(1) Any person desiring to be licensed as an embalmer shall apply to the licensing authority to take the licensure examination. The licensing authority shall examine each applicant who has remitted an examination fee set by rule of the licensing authority not to exceed $200 plus the actual per applicant cost to the licensing authority for portions of the examination and who has:
(a) Completed the application form and remitted a nonrefundable application fee set by the licensing authority not to exceed $200.
(b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the licensing authority that the applicant is at least 18 years of age and is a recipient of a high school degree or equivalent.
(c) Made disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any, as required by s. 497.142. The applicant shall submit fingerprints in accordance with s. 497.142. The applicant may not be licensed under this section unless the licensing authority determines the applicant is of good character and has no demonstrated history of lack of trustworthiness or integrity in business or professional matters.
(d) Completed a course in mortuary science approved by the licensing authority, which course embraces, at least, the following subjects: theory and practice of embalming, restorative art, pathology, anatomy, microbiology, chemistry, hygiene, and public health and sanitation.
(e) Submitted proof of completion of a course on communicable diseases approved by the licensing authority.
(2) The licensing authority shall license the applicant as an embalmer if the applicant:
(a) Passes an examination on the subjects of the theory and practice of embalming, restorative art, pathology, anatomy, microbiology, chemistry, hygiene, public health and sanitation, and local, state, and federal laws and rules relating to the disposition of dead human bodies; however, there may by rule be approved by the licensing authority the use of a national examination, such as the embalming examination prepared by the Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, in lieu of part of this examination requirement; and
(b) Completes a 1-year internship under a licensed embalmer.
(3) Any applicant who has completed the required 1-year internship and has been approved for examination as an embalmer may qualify for a provisional license to work in a licensed funeral establishment, under the direct supervision of a licensed embalmer for a limited period of 6 months as provided by rule of the licensing authority. The fee for provisional licensure shall be set by rule of the licensing authority, but may not exceed $200, and shall be nonrefundable and in addition to the fee required in subsection (1). This provisional license may be renewed no more than one time.
From Arizona Statute 32-1322 B, (with emphasis added):
B. An applicant for licensure as an embalmer shall:
1. Pass the funeral service science section of the national board examination or the state equivalent examination.
2. Pass the embalmer state laws and rules examination.
3. Be of good moral character.
4. Have been licensed as an intern for at least one year.
5. Have successfully completed an internship program that included assisting in the embalming of at least twenty-five dead human bodies.
These are just the regulations in Alcor and SA's home states. Both organizations have traveled outside their states, to perform procedures. Call me "overly cautious," but if I were managing a cryonics facility, I would do anything, and everything, to comply with state and federal regulations, for fear of negligence, or illegal activities, shutting down the entire cryonics industry. People working in cryonics aren't going to be able to put on their scrubs, or white lab coats, and believe this transforms them into professionals capable of performing advanced medical procedures, or gives them the authority to do things like declare people dead and commence preservation procedures, forever. Eventually, someone will stop these behaviors, and it won't be pretty, for the cryonics industry, as a whole.
If I were Bill Faloon, or Saul Kent, I would take part of the ~$2M a year I was spending for a lot of unqualified personnel and questionable "research," at SA and CCR, and spend it on establishing relationships with licensed embalmers in all the states in which I had clients. Better yet, I would investigate whether it was possible to acquire embalmers who are licensed in multiple states. While I was doing this, I would have a team investigating how to move the procedures into mainstream medicine, where they could be carried out by vascular surgeons, perfusionists, and other competent, qualified, medical personnel.
I believe LEF is supporting ten employees at SA and CCR, combined. When I resigned from SA, there were seven of us, all putting in 40-hour weeks, plus at least one consultant who told me he was allowed to log 160 hours per month. Taking into consideration that the SA employees are allowed four weeks of vacation, per year, that was approximately 15,360 man hours, per year. I've been there, and I feel an EXTREMELY large percentage, (the vast majority, in my opinion), of those hours were absolutely wasted. I felt some people were being paid to do absolutely nothing, with most of their time, and half the man-hours were being used on questionable "design and fabrication" projects.
SA has the time, and the money, to provide the services they offer in a professional and ethical manner. Yet they continue wasting all their valuable time and money attempting to train layman to perform medical procedures they will not be able to master without extensive, properly-supervised clinical experience, and designing and fabricating equipment of questionable merit. Bill and Saul, (or their extremely well-paid management), should really focus on researching ways to provide their services, competently, and in a manner that won't result in more trouble for the cryonics industry.
As "FD" recently suggested on the Cold Filter forum, and as I have suggested, many times, in the past, if the cryonics organizations don't regulate themselves, someone is going to do it for them.
1 : to treat (a dead body) so as to protect from decay
2 : to fill with sweet odors : perfume
3 : to protect from decay or oblivion : preserve
4 : to fix in a static condition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embalming
Are Alcor and Suspended Animation illegally "embalming"? (Cryonics Institute is licensed as a cemetery. Their procedures are conducted at a licensed funeral establishment, under the supervision of a licensed funeral director/embalmer, and monitored by the State of Michigan.)
Alcor and Suspended Animation may attempt to defend their activities by calling their procedures "medical research," but I believe any state board familiar with what they are doing, and the qualifications, (or lack thereof), of their care providers, will agree with me that their activities cannot be qualified as "medical research." I say they are (possibly illegally) preserving dead bodies, (embalming).
After a little research, I have ascertained that embalmers must be licensed in all 50 states. I am not going to research the regulations of all 50 states, but the states I have researched all require a formal education, (some from 2 - 4 years), an internship, (most of at least one year), and passing a local and/or national certification exam. Violation of embalming regulations result in possible jail time and/or fines, for each incident, in all of the states I have researched.
After the Dora Kent case, Alcor was accused of murder, illegally practicing medicine, and the theft of equipment from UCLA. None of these accusations held up, but as far as I know, they have never been accused of illegally embalming, a charge I believe would hold up.
As for SA, not only might they be illegally embalming, but in recent years, they have had laymen, (people who would not be allowed to legally administer drugs to patients, or embalm), traveling across state lines, carrying regulated medications, in order to do so.
From Florida Statute 497.368, (with emphasis added):
497.368 Embalmers; licensure as an embalmer by examination; provisional license.--
(1) Any person desiring to be licensed as an embalmer shall apply to the licensing authority to take the licensure examination. The licensing authority shall examine each applicant who has remitted an examination fee set by rule of the licensing authority not to exceed $200 plus the actual per applicant cost to the licensing authority for portions of the examination and who has:
(a) Completed the application form and remitted a nonrefundable application fee set by the licensing authority not to exceed $200.
(b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the licensing authority that the applicant is at least 18 years of age and is a recipient of a high school degree or equivalent.
(c) Made disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any, as required by s. 497.142. The applicant shall submit fingerprints in accordance with s. 497.142. The applicant may not be licensed under this section unless the licensing authority determines the applicant is of good character and has no demonstrated history of lack of trustworthiness or integrity in business or professional matters.
(d) Completed a course in mortuary science approved by the licensing authority, which course embraces, at least, the following subjects: theory and practice of embalming, restorative art, pathology, anatomy, microbiology, chemistry, hygiene, and public health and sanitation.
(e) Submitted proof of completion of a course on communicable diseases approved by the licensing authority.
(2) The licensing authority shall license the applicant as an embalmer if the applicant:
(a) Passes an examination on the subjects of the theory and practice of embalming, restorative art, pathology, anatomy, microbiology, chemistry, hygiene, public health and sanitation, and local, state, and federal laws and rules relating to the disposition of dead human bodies; however, there may by rule be approved by the licensing authority the use of a national examination, such as the embalming examination prepared by the Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, in lieu of part of this examination requirement; and
(b) Completes a 1-year internship under a licensed embalmer.
(3) Any applicant who has completed the required 1-year internship and has been approved for examination as an embalmer may qualify for a provisional license to work in a licensed funeral establishment, under the direct supervision of a licensed embalmer for a limited period of 6 months as provided by rule of the licensing authority. The fee for provisional licensure shall be set by rule of the licensing authority, but may not exceed $200, and shall be nonrefundable and in addition to the fee required in subsection (1). This provisional license may be renewed no more than one time.
From Arizona Statute 32-1322 B, (with emphasis added):
B. An applicant for licensure as an embalmer shall:
1. Pass the funeral service science section of the national board examination or the state equivalent examination.
2. Pass the embalmer state laws and rules examination.
3. Be of good moral character.
4. Have been licensed as an intern for at least one year.
5. Have successfully completed an internship program that included assisting in the embalming of at least twenty-five dead human bodies.
These are just the regulations in Alcor and SA's home states. Both organizations have traveled outside their states, to perform procedures. Call me "overly cautious," but if I were managing a cryonics facility, I would do anything, and everything, to comply with state and federal regulations, for fear of negligence, or illegal activities, shutting down the entire cryonics industry. People working in cryonics aren't going to be able to put on their scrubs, or white lab coats, and believe this transforms them into professionals capable of performing advanced medical procedures, or gives them the authority to do things like declare people dead and commence preservation procedures, forever. Eventually, someone will stop these behaviors, and it won't be pretty, for the cryonics industry, as a whole.
If I were Bill Faloon, or Saul Kent, I would take part of the ~$2M a year I was spending for a lot of unqualified personnel and questionable "research," at SA and CCR, and spend it on establishing relationships with licensed embalmers in all the states in which I had clients. Better yet, I would investigate whether it was possible to acquire embalmers who are licensed in multiple states. While I was doing this, I would have a team investigating how to move the procedures into mainstream medicine, where they could be carried out by vascular surgeons, perfusionists, and other competent, qualified, medical personnel.
I believe LEF is supporting ten employees at SA and CCR, combined. When I resigned from SA, there were seven of us, all putting in 40-hour weeks, plus at least one consultant who told me he was allowed to log 160 hours per month. Taking into consideration that the SA employees are allowed four weeks of vacation, per year, that was approximately 15,360 man hours, per year. I've been there, and I feel an EXTREMELY large percentage, (the vast majority, in my opinion), of those hours were absolutely wasted. I felt some people were being paid to do absolutely nothing, with most of their time, and half the man-hours were being used on questionable "design and fabrication" projects.
SA has the time, and the money, to provide the services they offer in a professional and ethical manner. Yet they continue wasting all their valuable time and money attempting to train layman to perform medical procedures they will not be able to master without extensive, properly-supervised clinical experience, and designing and fabricating equipment of questionable merit. Bill and Saul, (or their extremely well-paid management), should really focus on researching ways to provide their services, competently, and in a manner that won't result in more trouble for the cryonics industry.
As "FD" recently suggested on the Cold Filter forum, and as I have suggested, many times, in the past, if the cryonics organizations don't regulate themselves, someone is going to do it for them.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
20 Questions for Suspended Animation, Inc. (SA)
(What follows is a reprint of my August 13, 2009 Cold Filter post. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1250167128/20+Questions+for+SA
I did forward the questions to Catherine Baldwin, the manager of Suspended Animation, Inc., at two separate email addresses from which she is known to respond. In all fairness, I have yet to forward the questions to Bill and Saul, mainly because I just haven't taken the time to dig out their contact info. I do fully intend to make sure they each receive a copy of my questions.)
Recently, someone on this forum suggested that inquiring directly, to SA, might result in the answers to some of our questions, so I've decided to do just that. I'm sending the following questions to Catherine Baldwin, Saul Kent and Bill Faloon:
1. What are the names and qualifications of the Suspended Animation (SA) staff members, and why is this information not available on SA's website?
2. Are any of the SA staff members reluctant to have their names associated with cryonics?
3. Are any SA staff members proficient at femoral cannulation and/or perfusion? If so, please name these people and produce their relevant experience. (Proficiency requires extensive, supervised clinical experiences, on human patients.)
4. How many medical professionals does SA have on retainer, and are any of them are contractually required to respond, when "on call," for cases? (By "respond," I mean show up for the case, not answer their phone and say they can't come.)
5. Why does the management of SA think it is wise to attempt to train layman to perform advanced medical procedures, when their budget would easily allow for qualified professionals?
6. Does the management of SA believe it is acceptable to often rely on outside help, (such as funeral directors who may, or may not, be available for each case, or may not always be cooperative), or do they agree it would be preferable to have staff members capable of performing the core medical procedures needed for the washout procedure, (femoral cannulation and perfusion)?
7. What does SA do with 240 man-hours per week, and only a handful of cases, per year?
8. Does SA management track the cost of "research" projects, such as the Autopulse project, including man-hours?
9. Did anyone at SA really believe a DIY project, such as the Autopulse project, involving that length of time, and that amount of money, could compete with companies such as Medtronic, which has now produced the battery-powered "Lucas 2"?
10. At any time, prior to starting, (or even during), this very expensive project, did anyone associated with SA pick up the phone and contact the manufacturers of the Autopulse, and all of its competitors, to see if anyone was working on, (or would be willing to work on), a battery-powered version of such a device?
11. What lab experiments have been carried out at SA, if any, and what were the results?
12. Does the management of SA agree that the images on the SA website are somewhat deceptive, (especially the images of the lab experiment on the home page, and the surgical image on the "Vitrification" page)?
13. Why are the News Bulletins so infrequent, and why do the Case Reports take so long to be released? (See question seven.)
14. Why was the last detailed SA case report authored by two non-medical professionals who were not even present for the case, (which was carried out by three laymen with no medical experience, whatsoever)?
15. Who is writing the reports for the recent Alcor/SA case and the CI-95 case?
16. Will those reports contain the names and qualifications of attending personnel, the length of time taken for cannulation, the number of incisions made, and full perfusion reports that contain flow rates and pressures, volume delivered, volume returned, etc.?
17. Will the CI-95 case contain an explanation of the seemingly unreasonable amount of time involved in the procedure?
18. Do local codes permit dead bodies to be brought into the SA facility, for procedures?
19. Is it legal for laymen and/or EMT-Basics, (who have little-to-no field experience, following their brief EMT-B training), to attempt to carry out advanced medical procedures on dead bodies, in SA's Boynton Beach, Florida facility? (Or, anywhere else, for that matter?)
20. Does the management of SA think it is reasonable/ethical to charge $60K to have unqualified, inexperienced persons attempt to carry out well-established medical procedures that professionals could consistently perform, without error?
These are questions I've been asking for nearly three years, now, (since not long after I became a fulltime employee, at SA), and I would really like to know the answers. All this "disgruntled employee," "personal vendetta" nonsense is just that. I simply don't like to see medical procedures with which I am very experienced being bastardized the way they have been. It's time for people in cryonics to quit acting so ignorantly, and irresponsibly, especially those companies that are so generously funded. While it is certainly questionable as to whether cryonics efforts will ever be successful, I believe it is an experiment worth undertaking, (pun unintended), and I don't understand why cryonics care providers are not people who can perform femoral cannulations and perfusion, without inflicting more harm than necessary, (especially when the salaries of the unqualified care providers are often comparable to, or even more generous than, those of their qualified counterparts).
"Primum non nocere"..."First, do no harm."
I did forward the questions to Catherine Baldwin, the manager of Suspended Animation, Inc., at two separate email addresses from which she is known to respond. In all fairness, I have yet to forward the questions to Bill and Saul, mainly because I just haven't taken the time to dig out their contact info. I do fully intend to make sure they each receive a copy of my questions.)
Recently, someone on this forum suggested that inquiring directly, to SA, might result in the answers to some of our questions, so I've decided to do just that. I'm sending the following questions to Catherine Baldwin, Saul Kent and Bill Faloon:
1. What are the names and qualifications of the Suspended Animation (SA) staff members, and why is this information not available on SA's website?
2. Are any of the SA staff members reluctant to have their names associated with cryonics?
3. Are any SA staff members proficient at femoral cannulation and/or perfusion? If so, please name these people and produce their relevant experience. (Proficiency requires extensive, supervised clinical experiences, on human patients.)
4. How many medical professionals does SA have on retainer, and are any of them are contractually required to respond, when "on call," for cases? (By "respond," I mean show up for the case, not answer their phone and say they can't come.)
5. Why does the management of SA think it is wise to attempt to train layman to perform advanced medical procedures, when their budget would easily allow for qualified professionals?
6. Does the management of SA believe it is acceptable to often rely on outside help, (such as funeral directors who may, or may not, be available for each case, or may not always be cooperative), or do they agree it would be preferable to have staff members capable of performing the core medical procedures needed for the washout procedure, (femoral cannulation and perfusion)?
7. What does SA do with 240 man-hours per week, and only a handful of cases, per year?
8. Does SA management track the cost of "research" projects, such as the Autopulse project, including man-hours?
9. Did anyone at SA really believe a DIY project, such as the Autopulse project, involving that length of time, and that amount of money, could compete with companies such as Medtronic, which has now produced the battery-powered "Lucas 2"?
10. At any time, prior to starting, (or even during), this very expensive project, did anyone associated with SA pick up the phone and contact the manufacturers of the Autopulse, and all of its competitors, to see if anyone was working on, (or would be willing to work on), a battery-powered version of such a device?
11. What lab experiments have been carried out at SA, if any, and what were the results?
12. Does the management of SA agree that the images on the SA website are somewhat deceptive, (especially the images of the lab experiment on the home page, and the surgical image on the "Vitrification" page)?
13. Why are the News Bulletins so infrequent, and why do the Case Reports take so long to be released? (See question seven.)
14. Why was the last detailed SA case report authored by two non-medical professionals who were not even present for the case, (which was carried out by three laymen with no medical experience, whatsoever)?
15. Who is writing the reports for the recent Alcor/SA case and the CI-95 case?
16. Will those reports contain the names and qualifications of attending personnel, the length of time taken for cannulation, the number of incisions made, and full perfusion reports that contain flow rates and pressures, volume delivered, volume returned, etc.?
17. Will the CI-95 case contain an explanation of the seemingly unreasonable amount of time involved in the procedure?
18. Do local codes permit dead bodies to be brought into the SA facility, for procedures?
19. Is it legal for laymen and/or EMT-Basics, (who have little-to-no field experience, following their brief EMT-B training), to attempt to carry out advanced medical procedures on dead bodies, in SA's Boynton Beach, Florida facility? (Or, anywhere else, for that matter?)
20. Does the management of SA think it is reasonable/ethical to charge $60K to have unqualified, inexperienced persons attempt to carry out well-established medical procedures that professionals could consistently perform, without error?
These are questions I've been asking for nearly three years, now, (since not long after I became a fulltime employee, at SA), and I would really like to know the answers. All this "disgruntled employee," "personal vendetta" nonsense is just that. I simply don't like to see medical procedures with which I am very experienced being bastardized the way they have been. It's time for people in cryonics to quit acting so ignorantly, and irresponsibly, especially those companies that are so generously funded. While it is certainly questionable as to whether cryonics efforts will ever be successful, I believe it is an experiment worth undertaking, (pun unintended), and I don't understand why cryonics care providers are not people who can perform femoral cannulations and perfusion, without inflicting more harm than necessary, (especially when the salaries of the unqualified care providers are often comparable to, or even more generous than, those of their qualified counterparts).
"Primum non nocere"..."First, do no harm."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Progress, or Empty Promises?
Thanks to a recent post by Mark Plus, on the Cold Filter forum, I recently read a two-part article posted on Cryonet, by Saul Kent, in April 1998, titled "The Failure of the Cryonics Movement - Part I" and "The Failure of the Cryonics Movement - Part II". The primary topic of the article was the failure of cryonics to attract new followers, in other words, it was a report of a marketing failure. In it, Mr. Kent wrote:
"The result has been the failure to confront and effectively deal with the fact that our failure to sell cryonics has been due, almost entirely, to the poor quality of our product. Outsiders don't have to think twice to come to that conclusion. It's self evident to almost everyone....except to cryonicists!"
Does Saul Kent not see that is still the situation, especially within his own LEF-funded organizations? Let's go back to some excerpts from the February 2000 issue of Life Extension Magazine (note the year "2000"):
"The most recent breakthrough made at The Critical Care Research Project is an Automated Liquid Ventilation System that can lower whole-body temperature extremely rapidly with a (sic) an automated system that introduces cooled liquid perflurocarbon into the lungs without causing lasting injury. What remains is to make the system portable, so that it can fit into an ambulance for use at the scene of automobile accidents, heart attacks and strokes."
All that remained in February 2000 was "to make the system portable" and nearly eight years later, Critical Care Research has not accomplished that? There are papers on liquid ventilation, dating back to the 1920's, and experiments were carried out during World War I; it is not a "new" concept and it was not discovered by anyone in cryonics, though LEF-funded organizations appear to have been taking credit for it, for quite some time, now. More from the LEF magazine article:
"A paper on the Automated Liquid Ventilation System is about to be submitted to a major medical journal for publication. The kind of rapidly-induced hypothermia that's possible with this liquid ventilation system could save the lives of large numbers of people who suffer heart attacks, strokes and severe closed head injuries. The system could also be used in-hospital to give doctors extra time to perform heavy-duty surgical procedures. We expect that this system will eventually make "Headline News" as a one of the early major medical breakthroughs of the 21st century."
This technology has been making the news, but not as a result of anything being done in cryonics. Again, it seems as though LEF was attempting to make it appear that liquid ventilation was a discovery someone in cryonics made, when it certainly was not. Why has LEF continued to fund Critical Care Research for a project in which they have made little-to-no progress over the course of at least seven years? How many times is Steve Harris going to stand up in front of an audience and state that liquid ventilation is an effective method of rapid cooling, when that has been known for decades? The challenge in this project remains what Life Extension Magazine stated it was, nearly eight years ago; to make the device portable.
At this point, I am finding it difficult to believe LEF-funded organizations CCR and SA aren't consciously attempting to make cryonicists believe liquid ventilation IS something new. For example, here's a blog entry from someone who was in attendance at the Alcor Conference, for Steve Harris' presentation:
"Next up was Steve Harris, M.D., of Critical Care Medicine, discussing liquid ventilation, the new method ensuring the fastest cooling of patients. The heart-lung machine is faster, but it requires more time to set up, thus making it practically slower. Liquid ventilation can cool 5 degrees in 5 minutes in dog experiments, once the airway ventilation is set up." http://arctime.blogspot.com/2007/10/7th-alcor-conference-october-5-7-2007_14.html
(Note the attendee called liquid ventilation "the new method." I think that is because CCR/SA/LEF tries to leave that impression on their audience.)
Now, excerpts from Charles Platt's review of the 2007 Alcor Conference:
"Steve Harris MD - Following the panel, Steve described the procedure generally known as liquid ventilation which entails infusing the lungs with a chilled breathable liquid while blood is circulated either by natural heartbeats or, in the case of a cryonics case, by cardiopulmonary support. Liquid ventilation enables exceptionally rapid cooling. Only extracorporeal bypass is faster, but it must be preceded by surgery in an appropriate environment. Liquid ventilation can be performed spontaneously in almost any location..."
Since when can it be "performed spontaneously in almost any location"? Can the LEF-funded organizations perform this procedure "spontaneously" at ANY location other than CCR's lab? Last I heard, the SA system was still not portable. The images of the system on their website show how massive it is, and that aluminum frame assembly would most likely be a nightmare in a field situation. I believe Harris has stated he will be using SA's system in his operating room, at CCR, for dog experiments. For what purpose? So he can tell us, yet again, that it's an effective method of rapid cooling?
In my opinion, Harris and Platt did not need to test Platt's device on an animal, so they could establish the rate of cooling and report it at the Alcor conference. Platt's device is much too large for field use, so the rate of cooling is irrelevant. Didn't Mike Darwin prove that LV was an effective method of rapid cooling, to the cryonics community, nearly 22 years ago? And, didn't other people prove this, in conventional medical research, long before that? It's a "no-brainer" that cold lung lavage would achieve a greater cooling rate than simply packing a patient in ice, (provided adequate blood circulation was provided). Until someone delivers this technology to the field, who cares about the actual rate, when we can intuitively know it is much greater than packing the patient in ice? Make it portable and get it out there, THEN worry about improving the rate, if necessary. How many dogs must be subjected to surgery to tell us what we already know...that lung lavage is an effective way to cool? (Where are the animal rights activists when you need them?!)
"...and should require relatively little training of personnel....
LEF-funded organizations CCR and SA seem to think that about ALL medical procedures, as evidenced by the two fabricators and the golf pro they sent to perform whole body perfusion at their only case in three years. CCR uses a qualified, experienced perfusionist for their dog experiments. I wonder if they are required to do so by the people who control animal experiments. If so, why do Saul Kent and Bill Faloon not require the same for their human patients?
"...The procedure has advanced to the point where it may be deployable by Suspended Animation in human cryonics cases during 2008. Animal trials have yielded consistent results exceeding a cooling rate of 1 degree Celsius per minute, in dogs that fully recovered afterward. Higher rates may be feasible if we are willing to inflict some lung damage, which would be acceptable to neuro patients and might also be tolerated by some whole-body cryonics patients."
It "may" be deployable in 2008, or it may not. If it is, what has been the hold up for the past eight years? They didn't have me here, shouting that they weren't accomplishing anything? Who cares about the rate of cooling if you still are not able to deploy the system to the field, which is where cryonicists need it most? As for the lung damage, I doubt it is as serious as the damage that can be inflicted by unqualified persons performing whole body perfusion.
Here's another interesting excerpt, from Life Extension Society News October 1996:
"...and the newly developed technique of liquid ventilation.Technical training was hands-on using animal models."
"Newly developed"??? How can cryonics organizations get away with calling liquid ventilation "new"? I really want to know. And, how can the people funding these projects be so blind? Or are they? Maybe they're not being fooled, maybe they are simply allowing a project that has made little-to-no progress over more than two decades be used as a tactic for marketing cryonics to newcomers who may not be aware of the past, or may not do as much research as they should. Do Kent and Faloon not see this as one of the reasons they have failed, miserably, in marketing cryonics? Any intelligent person is not going to listen to empty promises of a "new" technology for more than a couple of years, without seeing any actual progress. After that, you have to find a new audience.
Mr. Kent also wrote, in his article, there is a lack of evidence that "we can effectively preserve ourselves," but I don't believe that is true. The evidence exists in conventional medicine, where patients are frequently cooled to legal death for periods of up to, (and occasionally even more than), an hour, and are then awakened, memory and personality intact. If it can be performed for a short period of time, it seems reasonable to assume it can work for a longer duration of time, given the proper medications/solutions, and cooling and storage parameters. More importantly, the medical procedures, (such as whole body perfusion), need to be performed by personnel who have been properly trained to perform them in a manner such as to avoid causing harm to the patient. You can't provide a metal fabricator and a golf pro with a weekend training session in perfusion and a couple of videos, and expect them to safely perform this procedure.
Many medical professionals consider the perfusionist to be the person who has the greatest potential for causing harm to the patient, in heart surgery. I'm told accidents or poor technique, (such as improper pressurization, inadequate flows, and massive air emboli), occur in cryonics on a regular basis, while these events were all but eliminated in open-heart surgery decades ago. This, no doubt, is a result of cryonics organizations using unqualified personnel. Perfusionists have either four- or six-year degrees and are required to perform at least 100 cases on a human patient before they can even sit for the board exams, yet Saul Kent thinks he can make do with a golf pro, or a fabricator, who has had a couple of days of training and a few video refresher courses. Everyone even considering SA's services should find this extremely insulting to their intelligence, especially when Mr. Kent is willing to pay these unqualified people as much as experienced, qualified perfusionists.
In the Saul Kent article mentioned above, he states, "Rich people, even rich cryonicists, aren't fools." I wouldn't be so sure of that. Am I the only person to think LEF/Kent/Faloon must be incredibly gullible? I believe they must be, or else they think the rest of the cryonics community is. These two presumably intelligent, successful men are spending millions of dollars a year to accomplish what? To have Steve Harris report that lung lavage is an effective means of rapid cooling, something he and Mike Darwin reported to the cryonics community more than 21 years ago? To send a golf pro and two metal fabricators to do their medical procedures? I really wish someone would explain to me what these two individuals actually think is being accomplished.
If I were funding a liquid ventilation project, and I believed it to be complete in every regard except portability, I would damn sure expect more than someone I was paying to stand up and say the same thing they said eight years ago, (or worse than that, the same thing they said nearly 22 years ago), which is essentially, "We have this great new rapid cooling device, all we need to do is make it portable." In fact, I believe I would want to know why the portability issue wasn't resolved, after only a year or two. I guess I'm more demanding than Bill and Saul, I expect progress, not empty promises.
"The result has been the failure to confront and effectively deal with the fact that our failure to sell cryonics has been due, almost entirely, to the poor quality of our product. Outsiders don't have to think twice to come to that conclusion. It's self evident to almost everyone....except to cryonicists!"
Does Saul Kent not see that is still the situation, especially within his own LEF-funded organizations? Let's go back to some excerpts from the February 2000 issue of Life Extension Magazine (note the year "2000"):
"The most recent breakthrough made at The Critical Care Research Project is an Automated Liquid Ventilation System that can lower whole-body temperature extremely rapidly with a (sic) an automated system that introduces cooled liquid perflurocarbon into the lungs without causing lasting injury. What remains is to make the system portable, so that it can fit into an ambulance for use at the scene of automobile accidents, heart attacks and strokes."
All that remained in February 2000 was "to make the system portable" and nearly eight years later, Critical Care Research has not accomplished that? There are papers on liquid ventilation, dating back to the 1920's, and experiments were carried out during World War I; it is not a "new" concept and it was not discovered by anyone in cryonics, though LEF-funded organizations appear to have been taking credit for it, for quite some time, now. More from the LEF magazine article:
"A paper on the Automated Liquid Ventilation System is about to be submitted to a major medical journal for publication. The kind of rapidly-induced hypothermia that's possible with this liquid ventilation system could save the lives of large numbers of people who suffer heart attacks, strokes and severe closed head injuries. The system could also be used in-hospital to give doctors extra time to perform heavy-duty surgical procedures. We expect that this system will eventually make "Headline News" as a one of the early major medical breakthroughs of the 21st century."
This technology has been making the news, but not as a result of anything being done in cryonics. Again, it seems as though LEF was attempting to make it appear that liquid ventilation was a discovery someone in cryonics made, when it certainly was not. Why has LEF continued to fund Critical Care Research for a project in which they have made little-to-no progress over the course of at least seven years? How many times is Steve Harris going to stand up in front of an audience and state that liquid ventilation is an effective method of rapid cooling, when that has been known for decades? The challenge in this project remains what Life Extension Magazine stated it was, nearly eight years ago; to make the device portable.
At this point, I am finding it difficult to believe LEF-funded organizations CCR and SA aren't consciously attempting to make cryonicists believe liquid ventilation IS something new. For example, here's a blog entry from someone who was in attendance at the Alcor Conference, for Steve Harris' presentation:
"Next up was Steve Harris, M.D., of Critical Care Medicine, discussing liquid ventilation, the new method ensuring the fastest cooling of patients. The heart-lung machine is faster, but it requires more time to set up, thus making it practically slower. Liquid ventilation can cool 5 degrees in 5 minutes in dog experiments, once the airway ventilation is set up." http://arctime.blogspot.com/2007/10/7th-alcor-conference-october-5-7-2007_14.html
(Note the attendee called liquid ventilation "the new method." I think that is because CCR/SA/LEF tries to leave that impression on their audience.)
Now, excerpts from Charles Platt's review of the 2007 Alcor Conference:
"Steve Harris MD - Following the panel, Steve described the procedure generally known as liquid ventilation which entails infusing the lungs with a chilled breathable liquid while blood is circulated either by natural heartbeats or, in the case of a cryonics case, by cardiopulmonary support. Liquid ventilation enables exceptionally rapid cooling. Only extracorporeal bypass is faster, but it must be preceded by surgery in an appropriate environment. Liquid ventilation can be performed spontaneously in almost any location..."
Since when can it be "performed spontaneously in almost any location"? Can the LEF-funded organizations perform this procedure "spontaneously" at ANY location other than CCR's lab? Last I heard, the SA system was still not portable. The images of the system on their website show how massive it is, and that aluminum frame assembly would most likely be a nightmare in a field situation. I believe Harris has stated he will be using SA's system in his operating room, at CCR, for dog experiments. For what purpose? So he can tell us, yet again, that it's an effective method of rapid cooling?
In my opinion, Harris and Platt did not need to test Platt's device on an animal, so they could establish the rate of cooling and report it at the Alcor conference. Platt's device is much too large for field use, so the rate of cooling is irrelevant. Didn't Mike Darwin prove that LV was an effective method of rapid cooling, to the cryonics community, nearly 22 years ago? And, didn't other people prove this, in conventional medical research, long before that? It's a "no-brainer" that cold lung lavage would achieve a greater cooling rate than simply packing a patient in ice, (provided adequate blood circulation was provided). Until someone delivers this technology to the field, who cares about the actual rate, when we can intuitively know it is much greater than packing the patient in ice? Make it portable and get it out there, THEN worry about improving the rate, if necessary. How many dogs must be subjected to surgery to tell us what we already know...that lung lavage is an effective way to cool? (Where are the animal rights activists when you need them?!)
"...and should require relatively little training of personnel....
LEF-funded organizations CCR and SA seem to think that about ALL medical procedures, as evidenced by the two fabricators and the golf pro they sent to perform whole body perfusion at their only case in three years. CCR uses a qualified, experienced perfusionist for their dog experiments. I wonder if they are required to do so by the people who control animal experiments. If so, why do Saul Kent and Bill Faloon not require the same for their human patients?
"...The procedure has advanced to the point where it may be deployable by Suspended Animation in human cryonics cases during 2008. Animal trials have yielded consistent results exceeding a cooling rate of 1 degree Celsius per minute, in dogs that fully recovered afterward. Higher rates may be feasible if we are willing to inflict some lung damage, which would be acceptable to neuro patients and might also be tolerated by some whole-body cryonics patients."
It "may" be deployable in 2008, or it may not. If it is, what has been the hold up for the past eight years? They didn't have me here, shouting that they weren't accomplishing anything? Who cares about the rate of cooling if you still are not able to deploy the system to the field, which is where cryonicists need it most? As for the lung damage, I doubt it is as serious as the damage that can be inflicted by unqualified persons performing whole body perfusion.
Here's another interesting excerpt, from Life Extension Society News October 1996:
"...and the newly developed technique of liquid ventilation.Technical training was hands-on using animal models."
"Newly developed"??? How can cryonics organizations get away with calling liquid ventilation "new"? I really want to know. And, how can the people funding these projects be so blind? Or are they? Maybe they're not being fooled, maybe they are simply allowing a project that has made little-to-no progress over more than two decades be used as a tactic for marketing cryonics to newcomers who may not be aware of the past, or may not do as much research as they should. Do Kent and Faloon not see this as one of the reasons they have failed, miserably, in marketing cryonics? Any intelligent person is not going to listen to empty promises of a "new" technology for more than a couple of years, without seeing any actual progress. After that, you have to find a new audience.
Mr. Kent also wrote, in his article, there is a lack of evidence that "we can effectively preserve ourselves," but I don't believe that is true. The evidence exists in conventional medicine, where patients are frequently cooled to legal death for periods of up to, (and occasionally even more than), an hour, and are then awakened, memory and personality intact. If it can be performed for a short period of time, it seems reasonable to assume it can work for a longer duration of time, given the proper medications/solutions, and cooling and storage parameters. More importantly, the medical procedures, (such as whole body perfusion), need to be performed by personnel who have been properly trained to perform them in a manner such as to avoid causing harm to the patient. You can't provide a metal fabricator and a golf pro with a weekend training session in perfusion and a couple of videos, and expect them to safely perform this procedure.
Many medical professionals consider the perfusionist to be the person who has the greatest potential for causing harm to the patient, in heart surgery. I'm told accidents or poor technique, (such as improper pressurization, inadequate flows, and massive air emboli), occur in cryonics on a regular basis, while these events were all but eliminated in open-heart surgery decades ago. This, no doubt, is a result of cryonics organizations using unqualified personnel. Perfusionists have either four- or six-year degrees and are required to perform at least 100 cases on a human patient before they can even sit for the board exams, yet Saul Kent thinks he can make do with a golf pro, or a fabricator, who has had a couple of days of training and a few video refresher courses. Everyone even considering SA's services should find this extremely insulting to their intelligence, especially when Mr. Kent is willing to pay these unqualified people as much as experienced, qualified perfusionists.
In the Saul Kent article mentioned above, he states, "Rich people, even rich cryonicists, aren't fools." I wouldn't be so sure of that. Am I the only person to think LEF/Kent/Faloon must be incredibly gullible? I believe they must be, or else they think the rest of the cryonics community is. These two presumably intelligent, successful men are spending millions of dollars a year to accomplish what? To have Steve Harris report that lung lavage is an effective means of rapid cooling, something he and Mike Darwin reported to the cryonics community more than 21 years ago? To send a golf pro and two metal fabricators to do their medical procedures? I really wish someone would explain to me what these two individuals actually think is being accomplished.
If I were funding a liquid ventilation project, and I believed it to be complete in every regard except portability, I would damn sure expect more than someone I was paying to stand up and say the same thing they said eight years ago, (or worse than that, the same thing they said nearly 22 years ago), which is essentially, "We have this great new rapid cooling device, all we need to do is make it portable." In fact, I believe I would want to know why the portability issue wasn't resolved, after only a year or two. I guess I'm more demanding than Bill and Saul, I expect progress, not empty promises.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Review of SA News Bulletin Number 11
In regard to SA "News Bulletin Number 11" (http://www.suspendedinc.com/news_archives11.html):
Ms. Baldwin states that some of the information was "compiled by SA staff," but I think she probably meant SA consultants. I see Charles Platt's and Aschwin de Wolf's influence there, quite clearly, but I doubt much of “News Bulletin 11” was drafted by any of the SA staff members, other than Ms. Baldwin, herself.
We all understand the “Vehicle Relocates to California” paragraph. The statement, “a significant number of our clients live in the West” is rather deceptive. What makes up “the West”? According to the US Census Bureau, “the West” is comprised of thirteen states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, but a broader definition may include all states west of the Mississippi River. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States )
How many SA clients will ever actually benefit from this vehicle, (or the other vehicle located in Southeast Florida)? The vehicle is really only practical for clients within a very small range. My guess is the vehicle will be retired after being used by one unofficial SA “client.” I wouldn’t really have an issue with Saul having his own cryomobile, if SA would quit trying to deceive their clients, and prospective clients, into believing the vehicle is going to be of use to a significant number of people. If you want a ride in one of the SA vehicles after your legal death, you had best relocate your home to someplace close to Kent or Faloon. Otherwise, you will most likely get a ride in a van rented at the airport closest to your home.
The “Perfusion Training” paragraph is arrogantly absurd. Why would you send three people, with no medical background, whatsoever, for a weekend training session and then expect them to be able to perform a medical procedure that can be tremendously beneficial when properly performed, but equally as dangerous when attempted by amateurs? It would be much more sensible to retain several qualified retired, or per diem, perfusionists to share call. This practice of training RUPs just does not make sense at SA, especially in light of their budget which is ample enough to pay for qualified personnel. I understand other organizations "doing the best they can," within a limited budget, but SA could afford the real thing. Becoming a perfusion technologist typically requires a four-year education that usually includes at least 100 supervised cases on actual human patients. It’s ridiculous to think a weekend training course and some video refresher courses are adequate training for this procedure. SA has only had ONE case in the last three years, how do they expect these amateurs to become proficient in perfusion technology without any real clinical experience? If this was rational, perfusion technology wouldn't require a BS degree.
The “AutoPulse” segment is interesting, especially the part that reads, “While the Thumper is still preferred for active chest compression and decompression…” Why is the Thumper “still preferred”? Because it offers active decompression, an advantage over the AutoPulse. This is an issue Aschwin de Wolf raised when Charles first suggested the very expensive AutoPulse project. Charles didn’t address Aschwin’s concerns with the AutoPulse anymore than he addressed Mathew’s concerns with the ramps, or my concerns with the level detectors, before embarking on yet another fruitless, expensive, time-consuming project.
In layman’s terms…the longer you keep squishing the chest down, the more likely it is to STAY squished down, making chest compressions ineffective. Rib fracture is the most common complication of chest compressions, and can lead to “flail chest,” something Aschwin addressed with Charles and others at SA, many times, in regard to the AutoPulse, a device that only compresses (squeezes) the chest, in comparison to the Thumper, a device that compresses AND decompresses (it suctions onto the chest wall and pulls up on the chest wall, opening the lungs and vasculature).
After a couple of years of working on the AutoPulse, SA (most likely Platt) now describes it as a “backup device.” SA already had a “backup device,” something they used as their PRIMARY device for the CI-81 case…manual chest compressions, something that is quite a bit more affordable and portable than the AutoPulse. Platt somehow convinced Kent to spend a ton of money on this project, (that no doubt has provided Platt with an ample amount of highly-paid “consulting” hours), without even considering the issues Aschwin raised, BEFORE the project was started. This is reminiscent of Platt's decision to choose homemade ramps over professionally installed lift gates, against Mathew Sullivan’s advice, and his determination to build his own level sensors/alarms, no matter how much time and money it meant to SA, in spite of the fact FDA-approved devices could be purchased for less than $400.
SA has purchased at least two AutoPulse devices at a price of $15,000 each, and has paid two people to work on this project for nearly two years, now. The combined cost of these two persons per hour, to SA, is greater than $100 per hour. In addition, these two people took their modified AutoPulse to CCR, in California, and let Harris and company test it on an animal. I suspect SA has spent at least $100K on this project, perhaps even double or triple that amount. Now it’s a “backup system”? Is SA going to carry TWO mechanical CPS devices with them? They are already carrying far too much equipment for remote cases. Common sense dictates that manual chest compressions should be the backup system for the Thumper. Common sense also dictates Platt should have addressed the lack of decompression issue when Aschwin raised it, before spending all that time and money.
As for the “Scribe Sheets,” Aschwin and I had begun working on these, not long before I left SA, against objections from Charles, who for whatever reasons, didn’t seem to like Aschwin and I working together, on anything.
As I’ve recently stated on the Cold Filter forum, there is no need for a person to operate solely as the scribe. While the surgeon and the paramedic cannot document while they perform their procedures, there should be two other persons available, including a perfusionist and a general case assistant. These two people should easily be able to document everything during the initial CPS and surgical portions of the procedure. In heart surgery, the perfusionist documents everything to do with the perfusion, including flows, temperatures, pressures, and much more, every ten minutes. Before and after the patient is “on pump,” the perfusionist is free to document other things. It only takes minutes for an experienced perfusionist to set up and prime the washout circuit.
The only thing I’m going to say about the “Patient Monitoring Training” and “End Tidal CO2” segments is: it’s idiotic to be training metal fabricators and golf pros to learn medical procedures paramedics, EMTs, perfusionists, and other medical personnel have already been thoroughly trained to perform, especially when you are paying the metal fabricators and golf pros up to more than triple what paramedics and EMTs earn, and as much as some perfusionists earn. Ms. Baldwin…show us your management skills…PLEASE…bring some sanity to all this.
The “New Deployment Simulations” section causes me to have very mixed feelings. While, on the one hand, I am happy to see SA doing something more at training sessions than having Platt explain the damaging effects of ice, everyone practice on the Thumper, and then eat pizza, I am angry that Aschwin and I were not able to achieve this, in spite of our efforts, a year ago, thanks to heavy interference from Platt.
Before he resigned, Charles put Aschwin and me “in charge” of one training session. We had planned to have the patient (a medical mannequin) expire upstairs, in my home, a short distance from the SA facility, and transport the patient back to the facility. We wanted to have only a small number of attendees, instead of the large number Platt was accustomed to inviting. Unfortunately, after he put us “in charge,” Charles proceeded to invite quite a number of people. Having 20 people ride in the SA van and enter my home wasn’t really desirable, nor was it a realistic case simulation, so Aschwin and I abandoned that scenario.
After Charles allegedly resigned, the SA staff planned another training session. We planned on inviting only six people whom we considered to be candidates to replace Charles as Saul’s designated “Team Leader.” Surprise, surprise…our “consultant,” Charles Platt contacted a number of the SA standby team members, (some in other states), to notify them of the upcoming training session. I actually had to call people and uninvite them. Hopefully, I was tactful in explaining we no longer wanted to have the large unproductive social gatherings, but were intending to have frequent, more focused sessions, for smaller groups. It's unrealistic to bring 20 people in a few times a year, give them a brief overview of the entire process, do a quick run-through of a simulated case, and expect anyone to remember what to do in the event of an actual case.
Why did Aschwin and I have to resign, before anyone would take our advice, at SA? I gave up a $75K salary, and spent the last six months posting on Cold Filter and my blog, and Aschwin resigned to work with Alcor, and NOW SA is doing what Aschwin and I suggested a long time ago? I guess Aschwin is the smarter of the two of us...at least he's still getting paid as a consultant, while I'm giving SA free advice through my criticisms of them. That's really horrible...they had my expert advice, but I had to leave and become their harshest critic before they would listen to any of it? In my opinion, this was due to Platt's greed and his egotistical need to believe no one can do anything better than he can, and Kent's failure to realize Platt was not really accomplishing anything of significance.
After Charles resigned, I discussed with the other staff members, the idea of having smaller groups do focused training. For instance, I wanted to select a few people to train as designated “perfusionists,” and train them thoroughly, with frequent refresher courses. We had two research scientists who could have worked together on training a few people in the surgical (cannulation) skills. We had a group of paramedics who needed new contracts, but probably would have been a little more devoted if they had ever been respected by Platt and his RUPs.
The paramedics had little devotion to SA, for good reason, in my opinion. When they came to Platt’s training sessions, they received the same information and instruction time-after-time. They saw things that could be improved and made suggestions, only to have their suggestions ignored. In the SA staff debriefings that were held after the training sessions, the paramedics were harshly criticized by Platt and his RUPs, who seemed to think their own knowledge base in regard to the medical procedures was somehow superior to that of the paramedics. Again…stabilization and transport are nothing new…paramedics and EMT’s have been successfully performing these procedures for decades. The only things that might be new to them would be the packing of the patient with ice and the use of the Thumper, (tasks that don’t exactly require a rocket scientist). It didn’t matter that the medications were different, they are still administered the same way, through an IV line.
The paramedics were critical of the PIB, the ramps, and some of the other equipment, just as I was, for good reason. The “transportable” PIB was heavy, cumbersome, and a pain to set up. At the last training session I attended, an SA staff member took 15-20 minutes to set up the PIB, while reading the instructions, and he had practice! As the paramedics stated, this device should be lighter, and setup should be obvious, something that should be able to be accomplished in less than a minute, without instructions.
The SA ramps are not only moronic, in comparison to lift gates, they are dangerous. When you factor in the man-hours of Platt and his fabricators, the ramp systems were significantly more expensive than lift gates. Everyone knows they are foolish devices. Even Charles’ right hand fabrication man said to me, “You and I both know the ramp was a stupid waste of time and money, let’s just wait until he leaves and we’ll get a lift gate.” At which point I said he was delusional if he thought Charles was going to jump off the SA gravy train, anytime soon.
It’s time for Ms. Baldwin to show us what she is made of. Is she a manager, or a mouse? Ms. Baldwin knows the salaries and consulting fees being paid by SA are inappropriate; she could have qualified personnel for the same price, (actually, for much less). She also knows the selection of personnel and consultants is inappropriate. The SA personnel are extremely underqualified to perform medical procedures, yet some of them are being paid more than three times as much as paramedics, and ridiculously more than what they should be paid for the tasks they perform, (building Platt's designs, basic bookkeeping, text-messaging their friends, etc.) Finally, if Ms. Baldwin approves of the equipment SA is using, it could only be because she is unaware of existing, more professionally constructed, less expensive alternatives. When are the REAL changes coming, at SA, Ms. Baldwin, or are your hands tied? Are you the REAL manager of SA? Do you actually have the power to change things, or are we going to keep getting more of the same foolishness in regard to unqualified personnel, lack of progress and total fiscal irresponsibility?
Ms. Baldwin states that some of the information was "compiled by SA staff," but I think she probably meant SA consultants. I see Charles Platt's and Aschwin de Wolf's influence there, quite clearly, but I doubt much of “News Bulletin 11” was drafted by any of the SA staff members, other than Ms. Baldwin, herself.
We all understand the “Vehicle Relocates to California” paragraph. The statement, “a significant number of our clients live in the West” is rather deceptive. What makes up “the West”? According to the US Census Bureau, “the West” is comprised of thirteen states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, but a broader definition may include all states west of the Mississippi River. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States )
How many SA clients will ever actually benefit from this vehicle, (or the other vehicle located in Southeast Florida)? The vehicle is really only practical for clients within a very small range. My guess is the vehicle will be retired after being used by one unofficial SA “client.” I wouldn’t really have an issue with Saul having his own cryomobile, if SA would quit trying to deceive their clients, and prospective clients, into believing the vehicle is going to be of use to a significant number of people. If you want a ride in one of the SA vehicles after your legal death, you had best relocate your home to someplace close to Kent or Faloon. Otherwise, you will most likely get a ride in a van rented at the airport closest to your home.
The “Perfusion Training” paragraph is arrogantly absurd. Why would you send three people, with no medical background, whatsoever, for a weekend training session and then expect them to be able to perform a medical procedure that can be tremendously beneficial when properly performed, but equally as dangerous when attempted by amateurs? It would be much more sensible to retain several qualified retired, or per diem, perfusionists to share call. This practice of training RUPs just does not make sense at SA, especially in light of their budget which is ample enough to pay for qualified personnel. I understand other organizations "doing the best they can," within a limited budget, but SA could afford the real thing. Becoming a perfusion technologist typically requires a four-year education that usually includes at least 100 supervised cases on actual human patients. It’s ridiculous to think a weekend training course and some video refresher courses are adequate training for this procedure. SA has only had ONE case in the last three years, how do they expect these amateurs to become proficient in perfusion technology without any real clinical experience? If this was rational, perfusion technology wouldn't require a BS degree.
The “AutoPulse” segment is interesting, especially the part that reads, “While the Thumper is still preferred for active chest compression and decompression…” Why is the Thumper “still preferred”? Because it offers active decompression, an advantage over the AutoPulse. This is an issue Aschwin de Wolf raised when Charles first suggested the very expensive AutoPulse project. Charles didn’t address Aschwin’s concerns with the AutoPulse anymore than he addressed Mathew’s concerns with the ramps, or my concerns with the level detectors, before embarking on yet another fruitless, expensive, time-consuming project.
In layman’s terms…the longer you keep squishing the chest down, the more likely it is to STAY squished down, making chest compressions ineffective. Rib fracture is the most common complication of chest compressions, and can lead to “flail chest,” something Aschwin addressed with Charles and others at SA, many times, in regard to the AutoPulse, a device that only compresses (squeezes) the chest, in comparison to the Thumper, a device that compresses AND decompresses (it suctions onto the chest wall and pulls up on the chest wall, opening the lungs and vasculature).
After a couple of years of working on the AutoPulse, SA (most likely Platt) now describes it as a “backup device.” SA already had a “backup device,” something they used as their PRIMARY device for the CI-81 case…manual chest compressions, something that is quite a bit more affordable and portable than the AutoPulse. Platt somehow convinced Kent to spend a ton of money on this project, (that no doubt has provided Platt with an ample amount of highly-paid “consulting” hours), without even considering the issues Aschwin raised, BEFORE the project was started. This is reminiscent of Platt's decision to choose homemade ramps over professionally installed lift gates, against Mathew Sullivan’s advice, and his determination to build his own level sensors/alarms, no matter how much time and money it meant to SA, in spite of the fact FDA-approved devices could be purchased for less than $400.
SA has purchased at least two AutoPulse devices at a price of $15,000 each, and has paid two people to work on this project for nearly two years, now. The combined cost of these two persons per hour, to SA, is greater than $100 per hour. In addition, these two people took their modified AutoPulse to CCR, in California, and let Harris and company test it on an animal. I suspect SA has spent at least $100K on this project, perhaps even double or triple that amount. Now it’s a “backup system”? Is SA going to carry TWO mechanical CPS devices with them? They are already carrying far too much equipment for remote cases. Common sense dictates that manual chest compressions should be the backup system for the Thumper. Common sense also dictates Platt should have addressed the lack of decompression issue when Aschwin raised it, before spending all that time and money.
As for the “Scribe Sheets,” Aschwin and I had begun working on these, not long before I left SA, against objections from Charles, who for whatever reasons, didn’t seem to like Aschwin and I working together, on anything.
As I’ve recently stated on the Cold Filter forum, there is no need for a person to operate solely as the scribe. While the surgeon and the paramedic cannot document while they perform their procedures, there should be two other persons available, including a perfusionist and a general case assistant. These two people should easily be able to document everything during the initial CPS and surgical portions of the procedure. In heart surgery, the perfusionist documents everything to do with the perfusion, including flows, temperatures, pressures, and much more, every ten minutes. Before and after the patient is “on pump,” the perfusionist is free to document other things. It only takes minutes for an experienced perfusionist to set up and prime the washout circuit.
The only thing I’m going to say about the “Patient Monitoring Training” and “End Tidal CO2” segments is: it’s idiotic to be training metal fabricators and golf pros to learn medical procedures paramedics, EMTs, perfusionists, and other medical personnel have already been thoroughly trained to perform, especially when you are paying the metal fabricators and golf pros up to more than triple what paramedics and EMTs earn, and as much as some perfusionists earn. Ms. Baldwin…show us your management skills…PLEASE…bring some sanity to all this.
The “New Deployment Simulations” section causes me to have very mixed feelings. While, on the one hand, I am happy to see SA doing something more at training sessions than having Platt explain the damaging effects of ice, everyone practice on the Thumper, and then eat pizza, I am angry that Aschwin and I were not able to achieve this, in spite of our efforts, a year ago, thanks to heavy interference from Platt.
Before he resigned, Charles put Aschwin and me “in charge” of one training session. We had planned to have the patient (a medical mannequin) expire upstairs, in my home, a short distance from the SA facility, and transport the patient back to the facility. We wanted to have only a small number of attendees, instead of the large number Platt was accustomed to inviting. Unfortunately, after he put us “in charge,” Charles proceeded to invite quite a number of people. Having 20 people ride in the SA van and enter my home wasn’t really desirable, nor was it a realistic case simulation, so Aschwin and I abandoned that scenario.
After Charles allegedly resigned, the SA staff planned another training session. We planned on inviting only six people whom we considered to be candidates to replace Charles as Saul’s designated “Team Leader.” Surprise, surprise…our “consultant,” Charles Platt contacted a number of the SA standby team members, (some in other states), to notify them of the upcoming training session. I actually had to call people and uninvite them. Hopefully, I was tactful in explaining we no longer wanted to have the large unproductive social gatherings, but were intending to have frequent, more focused sessions, for smaller groups. It's unrealistic to bring 20 people in a few times a year, give them a brief overview of the entire process, do a quick run-through of a simulated case, and expect anyone to remember what to do in the event of an actual case.
Why did Aschwin and I have to resign, before anyone would take our advice, at SA? I gave up a $75K salary, and spent the last six months posting on Cold Filter and my blog, and Aschwin resigned to work with Alcor, and NOW SA is doing what Aschwin and I suggested a long time ago? I guess Aschwin is the smarter of the two of us...at least he's still getting paid as a consultant, while I'm giving SA free advice through my criticisms of them. That's really horrible...they had my expert advice, but I had to leave and become their harshest critic before they would listen to any of it? In my opinion, this was due to Platt's greed and his egotistical need to believe no one can do anything better than he can, and Kent's failure to realize Platt was not really accomplishing anything of significance.
After Charles resigned, I discussed with the other staff members, the idea of having smaller groups do focused training. For instance, I wanted to select a few people to train as designated “perfusionists,” and train them thoroughly, with frequent refresher courses. We had two research scientists who could have worked together on training a few people in the surgical (cannulation) skills. We had a group of paramedics who needed new contracts, but probably would have been a little more devoted if they had ever been respected by Platt and his RUPs.
The paramedics had little devotion to SA, for good reason, in my opinion. When they came to Platt’s training sessions, they received the same information and instruction time-after-time. They saw things that could be improved and made suggestions, only to have their suggestions ignored. In the SA staff debriefings that were held after the training sessions, the paramedics were harshly criticized by Platt and his RUPs, who seemed to think their own knowledge base in regard to the medical procedures was somehow superior to that of the paramedics. Again…stabilization and transport are nothing new…paramedics and EMT’s have been successfully performing these procedures for decades. The only things that might be new to them would be the packing of the patient with ice and the use of the Thumper, (tasks that don’t exactly require a rocket scientist). It didn’t matter that the medications were different, they are still administered the same way, through an IV line.
The paramedics were critical of the PIB, the ramps, and some of the other equipment, just as I was, for good reason. The “transportable” PIB was heavy, cumbersome, and a pain to set up. At the last training session I attended, an SA staff member took 15-20 minutes to set up the PIB, while reading the instructions, and he had practice! As the paramedics stated, this device should be lighter, and setup should be obvious, something that should be able to be accomplished in less than a minute, without instructions.
The SA ramps are not only moronic, in comparison to lift gates, they are dangerous. When you factor in the man-hours of Platt and his fabricators, the ramp systems were significantly more expensive than lift gates. Everyone knows they are foolish devices. Even Charles’ right hand fabrication man said to me, “You and I both know the ramp was a stupid waste of time and money, let’s just wait until he leaves and we’ll get a lift gate.” At which point I said he was delusional if he thought Charles was going to jump off the SA gravy train, anytime soon.
It’s time for Ms. Baldwin to show us what she is made of. Is she a manager, or a mouse? Ms. Baldwin knows the salaries and consulting fees being paid by SA are inappropriate; she could have qualified personnel for the same price, (actually, for much less). She also knows the selection of personnel and consultants is inappropriate. The SA personnel are extremely underqualified to perform medical procedures, yet some of them are being paid more than three times as much as paramedics, and ridiculously more than what they should be paid for the tasks they perform, (building Platt's designs, basic bookkeeping, text-messaging their friends, etc.) Finally, if Ms. Baldwin approves of the equipment SA is using, it could only be because she is unaware of existing, more professionally constructed, less expensive alternatives. When are the REAL changes coming, at SA, Ms. Baldwin, or are your hands tied? Are you the REAL manager of SA? Do you actually have the power to change things, or are we going to keep getting more of the same foolishness in regard to unqualified personnel, lack of progress and total fiscal irresponsibility?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Steven B Harris M.D.
On September 17, Steven B. Harris M.D. of Critical Care Research (CCR) made a post titled "More Bits Than Pieces," on the "Cold Filter" cryonics forum. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1190076403/More+Bits+Than+Pieces
In this post, Harris, a man who does not know me, personally, and who has no firsthand knowledge of the events that transpired at Suspended Animation, Inc., (SA) while I was employed at that company, attempted to make it appear as though I had been negligent by placing a gas blender into the SA operating room, but not connecting it to a compressed air source. He also implied I was being negligent by failing to connect oxygen to the new oxygenator in the perfusion circuit in that room. It should be noted that both CCR and SA are funded by Kent and Faloon's Life Extension Foundation (LEF). Here's the quote from Harris' post (linked above):
HARRIS: "And I see you put a gas blender into the O.R., too, but didn't bother to hook it to any compressed air source (nor was there one in the building), making it worse than useless. Did you have a good laugh about that, too? We didn't after you left. Nor was there any oxygen connected from tank to new oxygenator."
First of all, I did not put the gas blender in the SA operating room; when I resigned from SA, the blender was sitting on a shelf in my office. Secondly, there was no need for the blender, nor compressed gas, in the SA operating room. The SA operating room was being prepared for vitrification, and it was a long way from completion. (SA has yet to master the washout procedure, which is infinitely more simple than the vitrification procedure.)
The perfusion circuit in the SA operating room is a prototype that doesn't even come close to being clean, much less sterile. I believe the oxygenator in that circuit was more than ten years old and, no doubt, well beyond its expiration date. That model of oxygenator has not been in production for a very long time. Mathew and I had made many cuts into the tubing of that circuit, with non-sterile scissors and bare hands...because it was a PROTOTYPE, not to be used on a patient. There was absolutely no reason to connect oxygen, (or any other type of gas), to the oxygenator, as Harris implies I should have.
Kelly Kingston's cat had free reign of the SA facility, while I worked there, including the operating room, where it frequently enjoyed climbing on the perfusion circuit. Open-ended tubing and suction tips connected to the circuit were lying in the open, on a non-sterile surgical table and even on the floor. This was a very dirty circuit that was mostly being used by Mathew, Aschwin and myself, to discuss the layout of such a circuit and possible improvements that could be made.
Harris' comments (accusations) on this topic were so bizarre, I couldn't even believe what he was stating, at first. It wasn't until someone else suggested to me that he was possibly making the mistaken assumption that the room was being set up for washout, (rather than vitrification), that his foolish comments began to make any sense at all.
I posted a rather rambling, repetitive reply to his accusations on the "Cold Filter" forum, on September 21. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1190382614/Harris%27+Mistaken+Assumptions+About+SA%27s+Operating+Room and on my blog. I bored even myself, by stating the obvious, over-and-over again, trying to figure out just HOW he came to make the rather non-sensical accusations he made. Harris didn't reply to my post, so I condensed my reponse and made a new post, on September 25. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1190730332/Waiting Here is the text of that post:
Four days, and I'm still waiting for Harris to enlighten us as to why he thinks I should have connected oxygen and compressed air, via a gas blender, to a contaminated prototype of a vitrification circuit in the Suspended Animation operating room, which wasn't anywhere near completion.
DID Harris mistake the complex, obviously non-sterile vitrification circuit prototype for a sterile washout circuit? (Only someone totally unfamiliar with cryonics procedures would make a mistake like this.)
DID Harris not realize the oxygenator he referred to as "new" has been out of production for a very long time?
DID Harris even see the circuit he's accusing me of neglecting, or was this inappropriate criticism just more garbage he collected from Platt?
Does Harris think oxygen, compressed air and a gas blender are needed for vitrification? Are they? (I don't think so. Some other gases might be appropriate, but Harris hasn't mentioned those.)
Maybe, after Harris gets around to answering these questions, he can move on to explaining why he thinks the "Consulting M.D." for a cryonics case, (being conducted by two metal fabricators and an office clerk), is only obligated to answer questions that are specifically asked. (He previously reported he would have told the SA team to give more heparin, IF they had asked him. I guess he would have also told them to cool more than they did, and a couple dozen other things...IF they had asked him.)
I believe Harris tried to excuse not giving more heparin, by stating the SA team also gave CPD. Perhaps he would like to explain to this forum why CPD is used primarily for banked blood, and why thousands of heart teams all around the world will be dosing their patients with heparin, today, not CPD. (Keep in mind that CI-81 was subjected to manual CPS at mildly hypothermic temperatures, for nearly three hours, prior to having his blood washed out.) Maybe Harris would also like to explain why CPD isn't considered as one of the alternatives to heparin during heart surgery, even in the event the patient is known to be at risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a life-threatening condition.
Only someone who had absolutely NO cryonics perfusion experience, or someone who had never seen the circuit Harris was referring to, or someone willing to tell blatant lies to discredit someone else, would make the statements Harris made. The last possibility seems to be the most likely choice, as Harris has also publicly questioned my credentials and employment history. (My references are impeccable, and the number of perfusion cases I have performed can be verified by two heart surgeons, a Chief Perfusionist, the surgical clinic I worked for, the coordinators of the heart programs at the two hospitals where my group did cases, a rather large group of anesthesia doctors who documented the name of the perfusionist in their case logs, and quite a few other persons, if necessary.) Finally, Harris accuses me of stealing documents from SA employee files I never had access to. One document he accuses me of stealing never existed.
What gives Harris the right to make these types of accusations??? I think some retractions and apologies are in order, in regard to Harris' extremely unprofessional behavior and false accusations.
In this post, Harris, a man who does not know me, personally, and who has no firsthand knowledge of the events that transpired at Suspended Animation, Inc., (SA) while I was employed at that company, attempted to make it appear as though I had been negligent by placing a gas blender into the SA operating room, but not connecting it to a compressed air source. He also implied I was being negligent by failing to connect oxygen to the new oxygenator in the perfusion circuit in that room. It should be noted that both CCR and SA are funded by Kent and Faloon's Life Extension Foundation (LEF). Here's the quote from Harris' post (linked above):
HARRIS: "And I see you put a gas blender into the O.R., too, but didn't bother to hook it to any compressed air source (nor was there one in the building), making it worse than useless. Did you have a good laugh about that, too? We didn't after you left. Nor was there any oxygen connected from tank to new oxygenator."
First of all, I did not put the gas blender in the SA operating room; when I resigned from SA, the blender was sitting on a shelf in my office. Secondly, there was no need for the blender, nor compressed gas, in the SA operating room. The SA operating room was being prepared for vitrification, and it was a long way from completion. (SA has yet to master the washout procedure, which is infinitely more simple than the vitrification procedure.)
The perfusion circuit in the SA operating room is a prototype that doesn't even come close to being clean, much less sterile. I believe the oxygenator in that circuit was more than ten years old and, no doubt, well beyond its expiration date. That model of oxygenator has not been in production for a very long time. Mathew and I had made many cuts into the tubing of that circuit, with non-sterile scissors and bare hands...because it was a PROTOTYPE, not to be used on a patient. There was absolutely no reason to connect oxygen, (or any other type of gas), to the oxygenator, as Harris implies I should have.
Kelly Kingston's cat had free reign of the SA facility, while I worked there, including the operating room, where it frequently enjoyed climbing on the perfusion circuit. Open-ended tubing and suction tips connected to the circuit were lying in the open, on a non-sterile surgical table and even on the floor. This was a very dirty circuit that was mostly being used by Mathew, Aschwin and myself, to discuss the layout of such a circuit and possible improvements that could be made.
Harris' comments (accusations) on this topic were so bizarre, I couldn't even believe what he was stating, at first. It wasn't until someone else suggested to me that he was possibly making the mistaken assumption that the room was being set up for washout, (rather than vitrification), that his foolish comments began to make any sense at all.
I posted a rather rambling, repetitive reply to his accusations on the "Cold Filter" forum, on September 21. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1190382614/Harris%27+Mistaken+Assumptions+About+SA%27s+Operating+Room and on my blog. I bored even myself, by stating the obvious, over-and-over again, trying to figure out just HOW he came to make the rather non-sensical accusations he made. Harris didn't reply to my post, so I condensed my reponse and made a new post, on September 25. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1190730332/Waiting Here is the text of that post:
Four days, and I'm still waiting for Harris to enlighten us as to why he thinks I should have connected oxygen and compressed air, via a gas blender, to a contaminated prototype of a vitrification circuit in the Suspended Animation operating room, which wasn't anywhere near completion.
DID Harris mistake the complex, obviously non-sterile vitrification circuit prototype for a sterile washout circuit? (Only someone totally unfamiliar with cryonics procedures would make a mistake like this.)
DID Harris not realize the oxygenator he referred to as "new" has been out of production for a very long time?
DID Harris even see the circuit he's accusing me of neglecting, or was this inappropriate criticism just more garbage he collected from Platt?
Does Harris think oxygen, compressed air and a gas blender are needed for vitrification? Are they? (I don't think so. Some other gases might be appropriate, but Harris hasn't mentioned those.)
Maybe, after Harris gets around to answering these questions, he can move on to explaining why he thinks the "Consulting M.D." for a cryonics case, (being conducted by two metal fabricators and an office clerk), is only obligated to answer questions that are specifically asked. (He previously reported he would have told the SA team to give more heparin, IF they had asked him. I guess he would have also told them to cool more than they did, and a couple dozen other things...IF they had asked him.)
I believe Harris tried to excuse not giving more heparin, by stating the SA team also gave CPD. Perhaps he would like to explain to this forum why CPD is used primarily for banked blood, and why thousands of heart teams all around the world will be dosing their patients with heparin, today, not CPD. (Keep in mind that CI-81 was subjected to manual CPS at mildly hypothermic temperatures, for nearly three hours, prior to having his blood washed out.) Maybe Harris would also like to explain why CPD isn't considered as one of the alternatives to heparin during heart surgery, even in the event the patient is known to be at risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a life-threatening condition.
Only someone who had absolutely NO cryonics perfusion experience, or someone who had never seen the circuit Harris was referring to, or someone willing to tell blatant lies to discredit someone else, would make the statements Harris made. The last possibility seems to be the most likely choice, as Harris has also publicly questioned my credentials and employment history. (My references are impeccable, and the number of perfusion cases I have performed can be verified by two heart surgeons, a Chief Perfusionist, the surgical clinic I worked for, the coordinators of the heart programs at the two hospitals where my group did cases, a rather large group of anesthesia doctors who documented the name of the perfusionist in their case logs, and quite a few other persons, if necessary.) Finally, Harris accuses me of stealing documents from SA employee files I never had access to. One document he accuses me of stealing never existed.
What gives Harris the right to make these types of accusations??? I think some retractions and apologies are in order, in regard to Harris' extremely unprofessional behavior and false accusations.
Monday, July 30, 2007
The Truth and Bigger Pictures
My presence on the Internet came about because of a desire I had to make the public aware of what was going on, and more importantly, not going on, at Suspended Animation, though it now seems as though there may be a "bigger picture." It was of no surprise to me that Charles Platt showed up just long enough to call me a couple of names, and then disappeared. Charles knows he can’t debate with me on the issues I’ve brought up, because everything I’ve written about him, and the situation at SA, is true.
The fact that Charles posted this blatant lie: “Indeed she accused me of tempting her falsely when I asked if she would want to manage the place and she responded in the affirmative, apparently not realizing (or choosing not to realize) that I was merely expressing curiosity…” when he knows I am sitting here with numerous emails from him that would make it obvious to anyone HE wanted me to replace Bary Wilson as manager of SA, only proves what I’ve known for a very long time, that he frequently uses his skill at writing fiction in attempts to manipulate the minds of others who are not familiar with any given situation.
It was Charles’ idea that I would be the manager of SA, not mine. The fact that I was never given that position is absolutely meaningless to me, as the title was meaningless, to begin with. Charles was the manager of that facility, even when Bary had that title, and he probably continues to be, though his hours are called "consulting fees." Either that, or four out of the five SA employees are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, playing on the Internet, and waiting for the surf to come up, as I type this entry. They don’t have a clue what to do at a cryonics facility, on their own.
Charles is not above lying, when he thinks others are not aware of the truth. When we were arguing about the SA website, he told me none of my complaints mattered because SA's contract with his girlfriend could not be cancelled without "due cause." Apparently, he had forgotten that he left the contract in a folder in the office he gave me. First, the contract was not with his girlfriend, but with "Manhattan Text and Graphics," a company in which the two of them are partners. Secondly, the contract allowed for cancellation, at any time, without reason, by the CEO of SA, (Saul Kent). Even if Charles had been telling the truth, I believe not posting a page of the website for more than three months after the contract was signed would have qualified as "due cause."
It also was of no surprise to me when someone else (Steve Harris) showed up to defend Platt/SA, though the nature of that defense was not well thought out, if thought out at all. Harris gave me a lot more to debate than I had to start with, and I believe the nature of his responses actually won a lot of support for me.
I am wondering if Dr. Harris is going to address the issue of nepotism at CCR, I raised on the Cold Filter Forum. Is it true that Sandra Russell is his wife, Joan O'Farrell is his mother-in-law, and the fourth person at CCR is Joan O'Farrell's spouse, or significant other? Of course, even if this is true, they may all be extremely well-qualified. However, it would raise questions as to how much we can depend on impartial reporting of what goes on there, as it would mean that four members of one family would lose their (no doubt, well-paying) jobs, if that company were to close its doors.
What do we know about the work being done there? I only have reviewed one paper and one patent. Are there more? Will Dr. Harris post a list of peer-reviewed studies he has done during his "20 years in the field"? Is it reasonable to assume CCR's continued existence relies, in part, on progress being made at SA, since they test Platt’s designs? I don’t know the answers to these questions, though I would like to.
In 2002, CCR was wholly funded by LEF, is this still the situation?
"Currently this exciting work is being pursued by Critical Care Research, a company that grew out of 21st Century Medicine and is being wholly funded by Life Extension Foundation." http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/apr2002_report_critical_01.html
We know they are funded by LEF (Kent and Faloon), but what else do we really know? I went to CCR's website, but there is no information there, just their address and a link to an email address. http://criticalcareresearch.com/
Harris made some curious arguments and statements in his attempted defense of Platt/SA. The most shocking was the comment that he had never seen literature advising against rapid cooling on bypass. (See my previous blog entry on "Rapid Cooling.") This literature is abundant, how could he have not seen it? His defense of the ramps was almost as shocking, to me, as I think anybody with common sense can see the foolishness in that situation.
Is the situation at SA simply a symptom of a much larger disease? Why does LEF, a non-profit organization, continue to fund these “for-profit” organizations that lose a tremendous amount of money, year-after-year? Why do Faloon and Kent, apparently successful businessmen, not see the problems with nepotism and grossly exaggerated salaries at these organizations? Who is Charles Platt that he is so indispensable to Kent?
If you examine Platt’s past, you’ll find he has a history of alienating most people he works with. Why Kent had Platt negotiating the Alcor contract when there is no respect between those two parties is beyond me. Would anyone reading this pay a man who calls Alcor “Jonesickle” to negotiate a contract with that company? It just doesn't make sense.
Why does LEF have four relatives, (if that is the case), working at one organization (CCR)? That’s just foolish. How can you expect to have accurate reporting in a situation in which four family members would lose their income if the company was unproductive?
I’m beginning to think there is a bigger picture of corruption here. I just can’t figure out the purpose. Do Kent and Faloon really think their money pit at SA, supported by the research at CCR, is going to provide them, personally, with good cryopreservations? I have an extremely hard time believing this. It’s not making money, it’s not making progress, so what is it all for?
The fact that Charles posted this blatant lie: “Indeed she accused me of tempting her falsely when I asked if she would want to manage the place and she responded in the affirmative, apparently not realizing (or choosing not to realize) that I was merely expressing curiosity…” when he knows I am sitting here with numerous emails from him that would make it obvious to anyone HE wanted me to replace Bary Wilson as manager of SA, only proves what I’ve known for a very long time, that he frequently uses his skill at writing fiction in attempts to manipulate the minds of others who are not familiar with any given situation.
It was Charles’ idea that I would be the manager of SA, not mine. The fact that I was never given that position is absolutely meaningless to me, as the title was meaningless, to begin with. Charles was the manager of that facility, even when Bary had that title, and he probably continues to be, though his hours are called "consulting fees." Either that, or four out of the five SA employees are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, playing on the Internet, and waiting for the surf to come up, as I type this entry. They don’t have a clue what to do at a cryonics facility, on their own.
Charles is not above lying, when he thinks others are not aware of the truth. When we were arguing about the SA website, he told me none of my complaints mattered because SA's contract with his girlfriend could not be cancelled without "due cause." Apparently, he had forgotten that he left the contract in a folder in the office he gave me. First, the contract was not with his girlfriend, but with "Manhattan Text and Graphics," a company in which the two of them are partners. Secondly, the contract allowed for cancellation, at any time, without reason, by the CEO of SA, (Saul Kent). Even if Charles had been telling the truth, I believe not posting a page of the website for more than three months after the contract was signed would have qualified as "due cause."
It also was of no surprise to me when someone else (Steve Harris) showed up to defend Platt/SA, though the nature of that defense was not well thought out, if thought out at all. Harris gave me a lot more to debate than I had to start with, and I believe the nature of his responses actually won a lot of support for me.
I am wondering if Dr. Harris is going to address the issue of nepotism at CCR, I raised on the Cold Filter Forum. Is it true that Sandra Russell is his wife, Joan O'Farrell is his mother-in-law, and the fourth person at CCR is Joan O'Farrell's spouse, or significant other? Of course, even if this is true, they may all be extremely well-qualified. However, it would raise questions as to how much we can depend on impartial reporting of what goes on there, as it would mean that four members of one family would lose their (no doubt, well-paying) jobs, if that company were to close its doors.
What do we know about the work being done there? I only have reviewed one paper and one patent. Are there more? Will Dr. Harris post a list of peer-reviewed studies he has done during his "20 years in the field"? Is it reasonable to assume CCR's continued existence relies, in part, on progress being made at SA, since they test Platt’s designs? I don’t know the answers to these questions, though I would like to.
In 2002, CCR was wholly funded by LEF, is this still the situation?
"Currently this exciting work is being pursued by Critical Care Research, a company that grew out of 21st Century Medicine and is being wholly funded by Life Extension Foundation." http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/apr2002_report_critical_01.html
We know they are funded by LEF (Kent and Faloon), but what else do we really know? I went to CCR's website, but there is no information there, just their address and a link to an email address. http://criticalcareresearch.com/
Harris made some curious arguments and statements in his attempted defense of Platt/SA. The most shocking was the comment that he had never seen literature advising against rapid cooling on bypass. (See my previous blog entry on "Rapid Cooling.") This literature is abundant, how could he have not seen it? His defense of the ramps was almost as shocking, to me, as I think anybody with common sense can see the foolishness in that situation.
Is the situation at SA simply a symptom of a much larger disease? Why does LEF, a non-profit organization, continue to fund these “for-profit” organizations that lose a tremendous amount of money, year-after-year? Why do Faloon and Kent, apparently successful businessmen, not see the problems with nepotism and grossly exaggerated salaries at these organizations? Who is Charles Platt that he is so indispensable to Kent?
If you examine Platt’s past, you’ll find he has a history of alienating most people he works with. Why Kent had Platt negotiating the Alcor contract when there is no respect between those two parties is beyond me. Would anyone reading this pay a man who calls Alcor “Jonesickle” to negotiate a contract with that company? It just doesn't make sense.
Why does LEF have four relatives, (if that is the case), working at one organization (CCR)? That’s just foolish. How can you expect to have accurate reporting in a situation in which four family members would lose their income if the company was unproductive?
I’m beginning to think there is a bigger picture of corruption here. I just can’t figure out the purpose. Do Kent and Faloon really think their money pit at SA, supported by the research at CCR, is going to provide them, personally, with good cryopreservations? I have an extremely hard time believing this. It’s not making money, it’s not making progress, so what is it all for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)