More DIY Foolishness and an Appeal to Max More

For anyone who has been wondering what inspired my last blog entry, it was the recent news about 21CM's intermediate temperature storage (ITS) unit, at Alcor. I was just wondering why Alcor didn't call up one of the many companies that manufacture cryogenic freezers, instead of funding another DIY project.

Did Brian Wowk, Stephen Valentine and Michael Iarocci bill LEF a small fortune, over a long period of time, for their ITS project, (and the cost of a patent), when a cryogenic freezer manufacturer could have delivered a spec-device, in a short time, for a reasonable price? How long has the ITS project been going on, and how many decades will it continue? Will it ever end, or will it linger on, like the liquid ventilation project? What is the true value of the associated patent?

Why DO cryonics companies seem determined to do nothing more than continually engage in endless engineering projects, mostly carried out by amateurs? Year-after-year, decade-after-decade, little-to-no REAL scientific research...just endless equipment fabrication projects, when most of the equipment could be purchased. Wouldn't it make more sense to outsource the ITS project, to a company that specializes in cryogenic containers, so that biophysicist Brian Wowk could work on improving those extremely toxic vitrification solutions?

Recently, on lesswrong.com, Dr. Wowk seemed to be arguing that Alcor's solutions are so extremely toxic, it doesn't matter how much additional damage the amateur patient care providers, at Suspended Animation and/or Alcor, inflict on Alcor's members, while attempting to perform the medical procedures needed to deliver the washout and vitrification solutions. So, why does his primary work seem to involve inventing/engineering? Has anyone, (other than Saul Kent, or Alcor), expressed interest in the patents of Brian Wowk, Steve Harris, and others being funded by LEF?

Yesterday, on the Cold Filter forum, Charles Platt indicated he doesn't believe Alcor meets the requirements of a non-profit agency. (I, and others, agree.) Mr. Platt seems to think Alcor could meet the requirements by engaging in, yet another, Rube Goldberg-esque project. In regard to an intermediate temperature storage unit, he laments "... I would not be surprised if the prospect of fabricating something more complex and totally different would seem very unwelcome to people at Alcor who feel they have better things to do...While I was at Alcor in 2003, I brought in Todd Huffman to do some preliminary testing of a simple ITS design, and I wrote about this in Alcor News. After Huffman left, I don't think anything more was done or said on this topic." It is BEYOND absurd for Mr. Platt to think having the Alcor staff assume the task of engineering a cryogenic freezer is a good idea, and cryonics DIY equipment projects probably do not qualify as real research, when it comes to "not-for-profit" status.

When are cryonics organizations going to engage in some REAL medical-science research, and stop wasting all their time and money on glorified garage projects? (Not specifically referring to the ITS device, but to the abundant DIY projects, in cryonics.)

To the new Alcor CEO, Mr. More...do your best to determine if ITS is really the best way to go. If you believe it is, determine the required specifications, and then consult with several manufacturers of cryogenic freezers...unless, of course, you think amateur engineering projects constitute "research," and you won't mind sitting around, watching the same small group of DIY-ers bill Alcor and LEF for this project, for many years to come. If Alcor is going to charge $200,000 to preserve bodies, with the implied promise of a possible future resurrection, they should make an effort to provide qualified personnel using professionally-built equipment; not laymen using their own garage-project devices. Take all the money you save on these endless, (and mostly fruitless) projects, and spend it on REAL research, (carried out by scientists, not unqualified laymen, please).

Cryonics Meets the Tobacco Industry

A while back, I had to turn off the comments, on this blog, due to the malicious links being posted, in that section, on a regular basis. This morning, I received the following, from someone who had attempted to comment on this post: http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/11/cryonics-well-oiled-propaganda-machine.html (I am temporarily omitting the name of the author, while awaiting his permission to include it.)

"Bravo for this post. It is good to see people taking on the cryonics industry--and indeed is is an industry like any other--and shining light on it.

There is a deluded notion by those who are so fearful of dying and so desperate for any alternative, that organizations like Alcor are altruistic and can be trusted to do the right thing without supervision. In truth, much of this is the modern version of snake oil.

And what most people don't realize is that people like Brian Wowk have major financial stakes in ensuring cryonics and cryonic-related organizations remain untarnished. They are paid through grant money, donations, etc from foundations or the public.

Even though Suspended Animation does not directly impact Wowk or Steve Harris (of Alcor), if the field of cryonics is shown to be full of con-men and incompetents, then their own funding (and paychecks) are likely to be cut. They have got a very, very large financial stake in all of this.

It is similar to Big Tobacco--none of the major tobacco firms wanted any of their competitors to get nabbed or regulated for their abuses of the public trust or deception/manipulation of the science, because if one tobacco company fell, they would all fall. That's why you see the Brian Wowks of the world coming to the aid of Suspended Animation. They're covering their own asses. Just like Big Tobacco has always banded together against outsiders, even though the individual companies of the industry are direct competitors.

It is time these organizations come under strict legal jurisdiction and regulation. They must be accountable. There must be public light on their activities. Complete transparency and accountability. If they are honest, there should be nothing for them to fear from this.

I hope your efforts prove fruitful. Don't give up. We need to bring some honesty to these industries and the individuals behind them."

(End quote.)
I think that was an excellent assessment of the situation, with the exception being that these companies have much closer ties than the tobacco companies. Suspended Animation, Critical Care Research (Harris et. al.) and 21st Century Medicine (Wowk et. al.) are not competitors. I believe most, (if not all), of SA, CCR and 21CM's funding comes from Saul Kent/LEF. (Saul Kent is identified as the "owner" of 21CM on Alcor's 2008 form 990.)

Dr. Wowk and I are having a debate, on lesswrong.com, and I'm not liking his tactics. I'm not sure if Dr. Wowk is attempting to mislead people, or if he has been mislead, himself, but some of his remarks are way off the mark.

Cryonics' Well-Oiled Propaganda Machine

Why does Brian Wowk PhD write, “Lies travel halfway around world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” in response to someone's comments about my blog, and then temper it with, “(t)his reply is mostly directed to David Gerard, whose comments have been generally sensible except for some misinformation”? (See Dr. Wowk's comments, under the "lesswrong" post, here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/343/suspended_animation_inc_accused_of_incompetence/)

Does Brian Wowk even know what the truth is, in regard to the information to which he would like to object? Like Steve Harris MD, (Chief Medical Advisor to Alcor and someone who posted blatant lies about me on the Internet, in response to my criticisms of Suspended Animation), Dr. Wowk was working in California, while I was working at Suspended Animation, in Florida. He doesn’t know what was going on at SA when I was there, any more than Harris did, and he very likely does not know what really goes on there, now. He also did not work at the Alcor facility, with Larry Johnson, but that didn’t stop him from calling Johnson’s book “400 pages of lies,” (under oath, no less).

Like Steve Harris MD's Critical Care Research, Dr. Wowk’s organization, 21st Century Medicine, receives substantial funding, courtesy of Life Extension Foundation, the same company that funds Suspended Animation and makes generous contributions to Alcor. Both these men live and work in California, so why have they they been two of the primary defenders of SA, a company in Florida? Why don’t Jennifer Chapman (President and Executive Director of Alcor) and Catherine Baldwin (Manager of Suspended Animation) defend the organizations they lead? Why should a PhD and an MD, who are not employees of SA and/or Alcor, defend those companies against accusations of incompetence and unethical behavior? Could it be that many with close ties to Saul Kent, Life Extension Foundation, SA and Alcor are lacking in credibility? Will Dr. Wowk’s efforts to defend those who fund his generous annual compensation, soon leave him with a similar reputation?

Suspended Animation is a secretive organization, which has not produced their “monthly” News Bulletin in nearly two years, and which refuses to identify their personnel, or the qualifications, (or lack thereof), of those personnel. Their case reports, (even the most recent ones), CLEARLY indicate an extreme level of incompetence in performing medical procedures, which were virtually perfected many decades ago, and any defense of their ability to properly perform these procedures would not hold up to the scrutiny of expert witnesses in a court of law, or in front of a regulatory agency.

Dr. Wowk wrote, “In Johnson's case there were also other issues that no decent organization could allow uncontested, such as selling alleged photographs of the remains of Ted Williams on the Internet. Not suing for something like that would expose the organization itself to liability.” I’m baffled by Dr. Wowk’s remarks. As I recall reading, Johnson posted the Ted Williams photos for a very brief time, (minutes, or hours, many years ago), before he realized it was pretty tasteless, and then took the photos down. Alcor did not sue anyone for that activity, when it occurred, as far as I know. Does everyone know what the “decent organization” of Alcor did in response to Larry Johnson’s first whistleblowing, all those years ago? They attempted to pay him $17,000 to keep his mouth shut. They drafted an agreement, but Johnson later changed his mind, didn’t sign the formally-typed version of the document, sent back the $17,000 check, and wrote a book. (Unfortunately, for Johnson, an Arizona judge has ruled the handwritten agreement is binding, something I believe Johnson’s attorneys may be appealing.) In my opinion, Johnson had, not only a right, but an obligation, to inform the public of the activities he witnessed at Alcor, and he should be protected as a whistleblower.

Does anyone think Johnson made more than $17,000, on the book? Think again. He first contacted me, when the book was about to be released. He told me he would never make a profit on the book, because Alcor would sue him for every penny he made, and more. Recent New York court documents state a measly 33,000 copies of Johnson’s book were sold, (an amazingly low number, in light of the generous publicity), yet Alcor is orchestrating ongoing legal battles with Johnson et. al. in three states. With that in mind, I think it's safe to assume Johnson’s prediction rang true, many months ago. Taking the $17K and keeping his mouth shut would have been the fiscally-wise decision, but I believe Johnson felt morally-obligated to expose the events he claims to have witnessed, at Alcor, (a frame of mind I can identify with).

While Dr. Wowk is correct, in that I have not worked for SA in years, and never under the current management, I have read their most recent reports, and I stand by my criticisms of that organization, and of cryonics activities, in general. If Dr. Wowk’s semi-veiled threats about possible “legal redress,” were meant to intimidate me, it was a waste of keystrokes. Personally, I welcome any opportunity to draw attention to the urgent need for the stringent regulation of cryonics organizations, (something I was previously opposed to), and am thankful to Dr. Wowk for presenting this particular opportunity. If these people cannot be trusted to consistently behave in a professional and ethical manner, without someone looking over their shoulders, (and I see little evidence they are capable of doing so), strict regulation is the logical answer. Dr. Wowk showing up, in recent months, to defend what I consider to be extremely unprofessional activities, has been something akin to the “last straw,” for me, in regard to believing anyone working in these organizations can be trusted to be forthcoming, in regard to the truth about Alcor’s and/or SA’s activities and/or capabilities.

For example, Dr. Wowk writes, "SA in fact contracts with professional perfusionists and surgeons." Why did Dr. Wowk leave out the fact that none of these people are guaranteed to show up for cases? When I was working at SA, they had a contract with a group of paramedics, too. That contract involved the paramedic group receiving a monthly retainer and extremely generous compensation for showing up for training sessions, but did not require them to show up for actual cryonics cases, a situation that resulted in SA sending three laymen, with no medical experience whatsoever, to perform (botch) their procedures. On the Cold Filter forum, Steve Harris informed us the perfusion group SA contracts with, costs them a bundle. Not only does SA pay for the perfusionists, but they lease some very expensive equipment from the perfusion group. Mathew Sullivan verified, (also on the Cold Filter forum) that, like the paramedics, the perfusionists are not required to show up for cases, unless they are available, (meaning they are not needed for conventional medical procedures, when SA calls them). In my opinion, contracted medical professionals, who are not obligated to attend cases, are nothing more than “window dressing".

If SA has qualified surgeons available, as Dr. Wowk claims, why was historical cryonics figure, Curtis Henderson kept at relatively warm temperatures, for MANY hours, and subjected to numerous incisions, last year, by SA’s manager, Catherine Baldwin, who is not a physician, much less a surgeon, (though she falsely referred to herself in SA’s published case report as a “surgeon”)? It seems she couldn't even FIND, much less cannulate, some of the largest blood vessels in the human body. (Afterward, someone from SA's perfusion group said, to me, "You were right, they can't do a cannulation.") I’m sure Dr. Wowk is aware of that case, and an Alcor case, which occurred at about the same time, in which another SA pseudo-surgeon, (someone who is also NOT a physician, much less a surgeon), is said to have cut well into the abdomen of an Alcor member, while attempting to perform a femoral cannulation. Is Dr. Wowk not aware that two of SA’s “surgeons,” (who, again, are NOT physicians, at all), butchered these two people, just last year, while trying to perform vascular cannulations, for SA?

SA’s contracted perfusionists did show up for each of those cases, but a perfusionist without a surgeon to perform the cannulation is basically useless. SA might as well have taken along the usual laymen to perform perfusion, since they didn’t have anyone to perform a proper vascular cannulation. It’s pretty meaningless, (and even deceptive), for Dr. Wowk to be claiming SA has “professional perfusionists and surgeons,” when there is no guarantee either will show up for a case, and one is no good without the other. The truth is, NOT ONE staff member of Suspended Animation, or Alcor, is a medical professional qualified to perform vascular cannulations or perfusion, the two medical procedures required to deliver cryonics washout and/or vitrification solutions...the procedures for which SA and Alcor charge $60,000 to $200,000.

Does it make sense to Dr. Wowk, for two companies, (each with a seven-figure annual budget), said to be in the business of delivering medical procedures that require competently-performed vascular cannulations and perfusion, to have staffs of six-to-ten persons, each, without either one having even ONE staff member professionally-qualified to perform the medical services they are selling, with price tags up to $200,000? Why is it the self-proclaimed “world leader” of cryonics, and the company that seems to be their primary standby team, don't have competent, qualified personnel, but contract with professionals who are not guaranteed to show up, instead? (Note that there were no contracts with professional perfusionists, prior to harsh public criticisms of allowing laymen to perform these procedures.)

I believe Dr. Wowk’s comment, in regard to someone attempting to “sabotage” SA’s relationship with their contracted perfusionists, is a reference to me. Perhaps Dr. Wowk does not know that I was acquainted with one of the leaders of that perfusion group, for quite a few years, prior to SA contracting with them. If one of Dr. Wowk's peers, someone he was acquainted with, was to be placed in a potentially career-damaging position, would Dr. Wowk not apprise them of the situation? Perhaps Dr. Wowk does not know that it was I, who first suggested SA contract with that same group, (a suggestion that was shot down, when I made it, back in 2006). Dr. Wowk certainly does not know that, even if I had been happily employed at SA, at the time the perfusion group was contracted, I would have made full disclosure of the situation, to them. I would have warned them they might show up for cases and not have anyone to perform the needed cannulations, because that would have been the professional thing to do. I would also have warned them that there had been a lot of scandal associated with cryonics, and expressed my concerns regarding certain issues related to cryonics procedures, (such as issues related to SA's medications, and state laws regarding performing procedures on the deceased). Finally, I would have asked their permission to post their company name on the SA website, before placing it there, something Catherine Baldwin failed to do. (After I informed the group their company name was listed on the SA website, (ironically, while SA was not willing to disclose the identities of their own staff members), the perfusion group requested their name be removed from the site.) Dr. Wowk can call my gestures “sabotage,” if he likes, but those professionals deserved to know the truth about what they were getting into, and Catherine Baldwin should have been the one to inform them. I wrote about my communication with SA’s perfusionists, here: http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2009/11/suspended-animations-perfusionists.html

Dr. Wowk remarks that “Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor, Steven B. Harris, MD, has sat on the Editorial Board of Skeptic magazine for many years and is respected for his contributions to scientific skepticism.” Steve Harris is the head of another secretive LEF-funded organization, Critical Care Research (CCR). The last known staff members of CCR, (a company that receives nearly a million dollars a year in funding, from the same company that funds SA and 21stCM), were Harris and three of his family members. Harris has publicly distributed a mountain of questionable medical advice, and doled out numerous blatant lies, in attempts to defend the companies his benefactors fund. I’ve written about him, extensively, on this blog. (Check the index, on the right side of the page.) I think Dr. Wowk will understand why I am unimpressed, though I'm guessing he hoped other readers would be. Anyone of reasonable intelligence, and having general knowledge of perfusion procedures, and being aware of some of Harris' many bizarre responses to my criticisms of Alcor and SA's perfusion procedures, would be skeptical of Harris.

Until recently, I had a fairly high regard for Dr. Wowk’s integrity, but in my opinion, he’s starting to look like someone fairly close to the hub of a well-oiled propaganda-spewing machine.

Cryonics Cranks and Crackpots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cryonics Salaries and Wages

Aschwin de Wolf writes:

http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/09/22/the-future-of-alcor/

"For most of its history Alcor used to be rather transparent about staff member salaries in its communications and the magazine. It may not be a coincidence that this practice disappeared during the period when Alcor saw substantial increases in compensation for (some of) its staff members. To give some perspective, the old Tim Freeman Cryonics FAQ included the following question and answer:

7-2. Is anyone getting rich from cryonics? What are the salaries at these organizations like?

In December 1990, Cryonics magazine reported that the Board of Directors of Alcor voted a 25% pay cut for all of the staff, so they could keep their budget balanced. Many of the Directors are also on the staff. The salaries after the cut ranged from $22,500 annually for the highest paid full-time employee (the President) to $14,400 for the lowest-paid full-time employee. None of the Alcor staff are getting rich from their salaries.

It would be a worthwhile undertaking to do a comprehensive study of Alcor’s staff and consultant compensation history and policies (or lack thereof). There is never a shortage of arguments to justify higher compensation and ad-hoc decision making in cryonics, but it is doubtful that generous salary increases in the industry over the years were necessary to recruit or retain competent staff members. It might even be argued that a number of problems in cryonics are actually linked to offering wages that exceed what the employees who receive them would otherwise earn in the market place. Similarly, substantial cost savings can be obtained by increasing productivity and decreasing staff members. Issues of compensation and staff efficiency should be essential topics of consideration in any serious discussion about Alcor becoming more self-sustaining and less dependent on wealthy donors." http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2009/09/22/the-future-of-alcor/

(Emphasis added. It might even be argued that many of the recipients of overly-generous salaries, at cryonics organizations, would not be offered any salary at all, in a conventional medical, or scientific, setting.)

To see Alcor's salaries, and other expenses, look for their Form 990's, here: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

2008 shows Tanya Jones (listed as "Exec Dir, CEO, President COO) being paid $83,797 and receiving an additional $5,627 in "Other compensation." If you add up all the salaries listed on Alcor's 2008 Form 990, you get $196,362, which is reported on page 10, line 5, of that report. Just below that figure, on page 10, line 7, you will see "Other salaries and wages" of $270,538. Whom did that money go to? The same situation exists, in 2007, with $203,825 going to named staff members, and $283,286 going to "other."

I'm not going to take the time to go back, any further. Maybe Alcor has a valid reason for providing mysterious "Other salaries and wages" far in excess of those provided to the named staff members. If so, I'm sure some Alcor members would like to know what that reason is, and where that money is going.

The total salaries at Suspended Animation, of Boynton Beach, Florida, (primarily funded by Life Extension Foundation (LEF)), are far in excess of those being paid, at Alcor, in spite of SA having less named "Officers, Directors and Trustees," than Alcor, at last count. I think it's safe to assume the LEF-funded salaries at Critical Care Research and 21st Century Medicine are comparable to, or in excess of, those being paid by Alcor. Why are people with so few qualifications amongst them, being paid so much money? This situation seems to have more to do with "loyalty," rather than qualifications and/or competency.

Cold Filter Cryonics Forum Antics Get More Bizarre by the Day

This has been one of the funniest weeks on the Cold Filter forum, ever! First, a few people made fools out of themselves, trying to pretend I committed libel, in my post about Alcor membership dues, which clearly does not contain any libelous remarks. (See previous post.)

Now, we have Charles Platt, of all people, advising the CF moderator, on how to avoid being held responsible for charges of defamation. That's hilarious!!! As everyone might recall, Platt and I used to work together, at Suspended Animation. Sometime after that, during 2007, Platt was working with Steve Harris MD, (Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor), at Critical Care Research. At that time, Harris posted a lot really stupid blatant lies, about my work at SA, though he didn't really know me, and had never worked with me or even visited the SA building while I was working there. He posted these lies...yup, you guessed it...on the Cold Filter forum. It was obvious where the lies came from, so I threatened to sue everyone from Kent on down, if Platt did not publish some sort of retraction, and apologize. Platt hired an attorney and posted this, which clearly proves the stories Harris was publishing on the Cold Filter forum were false.

Now, we have Platt advising the Cold Filter moderator, on how to avoid being involved in a defamation suit??? Is it just me, or is that just really weird and funny? If anyone has ever brought the CF moderator to the brink of a defamation lawsuit, it was when Harris libeled me, with false information he, very obviously, got from Platt! After all that, Platt feels he is someone who should be advising the CF moderator on avoiding defamation charges? Seriously...that's BEYOND hilarious...it doesn't get much funnier than this!

American Society of Extracorporeal Technology (Perfusion) Code of Ethics

From AmSECT's website:
http://www.amsect.org/sections/practice/index.html

"CODE OF ETHICS

Preamble

The purpose of a code of ethics is to acknowledge a profession's acceptance of the responsibility and trust conferred upon it by society and to recognize the internal obligations inherent in that trust...

...Canon 1

Members must uphold the dignity and honor of the profession, accept its disciplines and expose without hesitation illegal, unethical and incompetent conduct.

Interpretive Statements...

...b.The member has a personal, as well as a professional, obligation to protect and safeguard the patients from illegal and/or unethical actions or the incompetence of any person...

...Canon 3

Members shall provide only those services for which they are qualified. Members shall not misrepresent in any manner, either directly or indirectly, their skills, training, professional credentials, identity or services." (Are you paying attention, cryonics "surgeons" and "perfusionists" and other "medical personnel" or "patient care providers"? I know, I know, your "patients" are dead, but still...)

"Interpretive Statements

a.Members will accept responsibility for the exercise of sound judgment in the delivery of services to the patient and shall be accountable for the quality of the service provided.

b.Members will provide accurate information about the profession, and services they provide, as well as the members' own qualifications.

c.The members shall not engage in practices beyond their competence or training...

...Canon 5

Members shall maintain and promote high standards for...education, research and scientific presentations and/or publications..."

More Misinformation from Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor

Alcor Life Extension Foundation, of Scottsdale, Arizona, and Suspended Animation, of Boynton Beach, Florida, charge a bundle for procedures based on vascular cannulations and perfusion technology. These are common procedures, in conventional medicine, and anyone qualified to perform those procedures could perform the procedures being offered by Alcor and SA. Laymen attempting to perform these procedures is most likely to result in tissue/structural damage. In spite of those facts, Alcor and SA seem to think it's acceptable to have laymen performing these procedures, and other procedures usually only performed by advanced-level paramedics. They charge $60,000 to $150,000 for their services, never promising skilled personnel will perform the surgical procedures.

The cannulations required for cryonics procedures are identical to those carried out in conventional medicine, and the perfusion procedures have very little variation from those carried out in conventional medicine. Given that the sole purpose of Alcor and SA's surgical teams is to provide vascular cannulations and perfusion, and given the amount of money being poured into these organizations, shouldn't they be delivering qualified personnel to perform those procedures? Why are (often highly-paid) laymen most often performing these procedures? Is it because no one working in cryonics knows any better?

My last post was about Steve Harris MD, (head of Critical Care Research, Alcor Life Extension Foundation's Chief Medical Advisor, Director of Suspended Animation, Advisor to Cryonics Institute), displaying a lack of knowledge, regarding the application of femoral cannulations, in conventional medicine. Harris had disagreed with me, regarding the femoral cannulations being identical to those carried out, in conventional medicine, stating those in conventional medicine are carried out on patients "with good blood pressure," and "anatomy resembling a textbook diagram." He couldn't have been more wrong. (See previous blog entry.)

In response to his error, I described a perfusion procedure, (a form of CPS/cardiopulmonary support), which involves femorally cannulating and perfusing a patient, in an emergency situation, (usually in order to transport them to an operating room, or cath lab). This is a relatively simple procedure that involves a single perfusion pump on a cart, and can be carried out in ANY hospital offering open-heart surgery. In response to my correction, Harris did a lot of research and came back with information regarding a totally different perfusion procedure, (ECMO/ECLS), which is offered only in a limited number of facilities.

Harris' post was fundamentally flawed, in that the underlying argument is that vascular cannulations and perfusion are quite common, and thousands of people are qualified to competently deliver these procedures. No one in cryonics is discussing ECMO (a prolonged perfusion procedure most often used to address neonatal respiratory distress), so his asking me for statistics regarding those procedures was pointless. It's obvious he did not recognize the CPS procedure I described, when he came back with information about ECLS, (a term used synonomously with ECMO).
http://www.mch.com/page/EN/2052/Extra-Corporeal-Membrane-Oxygenation/What-is-ECMO?.aspx

It's pretty clear one of cryonics' most prominent medical advisors has limited knowledge, regarding vascular cannulations and perfusion, (the key ingredients of cryonics procedures), as performed in conventional medicine. Which should be no surprise, since I believe his specialty, prior to being involved in cryonics, was geriatrics.

Maybe Suspended Animation and/or Alcor should ask one of the qualified perfusionists they claim to be using, to have these debates with me. Of course, that person should be willing to sign their name, and take those discussions to the perfusion forums, where people who actually understand these procedures can be asked to evaluate the situation, in cryonics.

Keep in mind that people who sign up for Alcor's and SA's services are also encouraged to leave bequests and trusts, to cryonics organizations, on top of the extremely high fees. These people are screaming "REGULATION NEEDED."

Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor Displays Lack of Knowledge, Regarding Vascular Cannulations

In a recent Cryonet post, Steve Harris MD responded to my remarks regarding femoral cannulation, with this:

Harris: "Cannulation in medicine for femoral bypass is done on patients with a good blood pressure, and this is true even if the patient is intended to be cooled later. That means the arteries are pulsatile and pinkish white, the veins properly blue and fat with pressure, and everything looks like an anatomy diagram."

http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32685)

I repeated what Harris wrote, to my husband, (who has no medical experience), and he said, "That makes sense." I responded, "Yes, to someone who doesn't know much about cardiovascular surgery and perfusion, it does." That's what really bugs me, about Harris and some of his buddies. They SEEM like they know what they are talking about, even when they don't, and I'm sure they are very convincing, to laymen. Harris has posted a lot of inaccurate information, in response to my criticisms of Suspended Animation. I used to think he was being dishonest, now I'm beginning to wonder if he simply doesn't know what he is talking about, when he makes these mistakes.

The truth is, cardiovascular patients with good blood pressure are almost always cannulated via the right atrium and aorta, NOT femorally. Femoral cannulations are usually reserved for urgent cases (such as patients undergoing cardiac arrest, who have little-to-no pressure), or other special cases (such as "re-do's"). Many times, I've seen patients who were brought to the cath lab already in cardiac arrest, (on occasion, with someone straddling them in the gurney, performing CPR), or patients who suffered cardiac arrest while undergoing procedures in the cath lab. I've witnessed these patients undergo emergency femoral cannulation, so they could be placed on a CPS device, (a portable perfusion circuit). The professionals who performed those cannulations, (on patients with little-to-no blood pressure), performed them skillfully and within minutes. So, why would Harris paint that rosy little image of surgeons in conventional medicine settings having the ideal conditions, when performing femoral cannulations, when the reality is that femoral cannulations are frequently performed under very stressful, and less-than-ideal circumstances? In cryonics, the person being cannulated is already dead, (presumably, with DNR orders, in place), but in conventional medicine, a surgeon performing a femoral cannulation may have the life of someone who has already "coded," (and who has not expressed a willingness to leave this lifetime), in his hands. Harris seems to want to make the conventional medicine scenario out to be a walk in the park. Is he misrepresenting the situation, on purpose, or is he really that ignorant, in regard to cannulations performed in conventional medicine?

Harris went on, to write: "In cryonics, femoral cannulations are considerably more difficult...In such circumstances it's surprisingly hard to tell veins from arteries. I think most surgeons would be shocked, but I doubt that many vascular surgeons have ever tried it..."

I don't mean to be rude, truly I don't, but when I read nonsense like that, I really have to wonder about Harris' knowledge and/or integrity. Is his argument that, because femoral cannulations on patients with no blood pressure are "considerably more difficult," they should be performed by laymen who have received minimal training on pigs and/or dogs, (and maybe a few cryonics cases, spread out over a period of years), rather than by competent medical professionals skilled in performing vascular cannulations? Seriously, is that his position? That's absolutely ludicrous. Harris may have trouble telling veins from arteries, but most vascular surgeons, (and other professionals, who may assist them, such as physician ssistants), would not, even under the worst of circumstances. Most, if not all, vascular surgeons will have had cadaver experience, (including the dissection of arteries and veins), in med school, and cardiovascular surgeons will have many experiences cannulating patients with little-to-no blood pressure, over the course of their careers.

This is only one, of the MANY times, Steve Harris MD (Chief Medical Advisor of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Director of Suspended Animation and Advisor to Cryonics Institute), has published inaccurate information. Below, are a handful of examples of past misinformation, posted by Harris:

As some of you might recall, Harris once wrote a post in which he insisted cardiac surgeons were being paid $50,000, per case, (and, no, it was not a typo). Having been a member of a cost-containment committee at one of the hospitals where I used to work, I knew that was grossly inaccurate. When I responded that a cardiac surgeon would be lucky to make ten percent of that figure, Harris responded by calling me names. He said I was a "nit and a naif," if I did not believe cardiac surgeons made $50,000, per case. Of course, at some point, he had to admit he was wrong.

He defended allowing laymen to have access to propofol, indicating it was justified, because the 200mg dose being prescribed would "keep people dead." As I've already stated, dozens of times, 200mg of propofol isn't enough to keep an average-sized person unconscious for more than a few minutes, much less dead. The propofol protocol just didn't make sense, (I mean, why risk people accusing cryonics organizations of dirty deeds, again, over a dose not large enough to achieve the stated goal?), but Harris defended it, and then turned it into something much worse.

http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/03/steve-harris-md-drops-bombshell-on-cold.html

Once, he posted a slew of blatant lies, about me, which he had heard from someone he was working with. He didn't even bother to say, "I heard...," or "Someone told me...," he made very specific, false statements, as though they were fact. The person who provided him with the lies publicly corrected them, and apologized, (on the advice of an attorney).

In his book, "Mother Melters" former Riverside County Coroner's Investigator, Alan Kunzman, claims Harris signed multiple copies of a death certificate, which contained false information. Kunzman says Harris' defense was that he didn't read the documents, he just signed them because someone associated with Alcor asked him to. Does Steve Harris simply do everything the people who pay him ask him to, without question? Is that why he is a "prominent person" in cryonics?

A little competence, integrity and professionalism might go a long way, in changing the public's perception of cryonics.

Patents in Cryonics

Recently, Steve Harris tried to impress me, (or maybe other readers of the "Cold Filter" cryonics forum), by stating he holds a "novel propofol formulation patent in several countries, with more to come." Apparently, Harris has not paid attention to my previous posts, regarding patents. If a person was to tell me they held one hundred patents, without being able to prove any of their patented items had been successfully marketed, all they would have convinced me of is that they, (or someone funding their activities), had spent a whole lot of money. Just about anybody willing to spend the money, could hold any number of "novel formulation" patents, but that wouldn't mean any of them were safe, effective, worthy of FDA-approval, or marketable. While the people funding cryonics activities may find the issuance of patents impressive, I don't. Most patents are worthless. When Harris comes back with proof his patented propofol formulation has received FDA-approval and is being marketed by a major pharmaceutical company, then I'll be impressed. Other than the inventors, (whose activities have been funded by LEF and/or Alcor), and maybe some patent attorneys, has anyone ever made a penny off of any of the patents related to the activities of cryonics organizations?

Hopefully, Harris et. al.'s laboratory work isn't as sloppy as one of their patent recent applications: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jspWO=2009042220&IA=US2008011224&DISPLAY=DESC
In this particular application, there were numerous very careless errors, which I spotted the first time I read it. For example, they were "induc(ing)hyperthermia in order to decrease mammalian temperature..." ("Inducing hyperthermia" means warming, not cooling.) I understand typos, but for a Harris' group to submit a patent application in which they consistently confused the terms for heating and cooling, is beyond sloppy. Glaringly obvious, careless mistakes, such as those, make it appear as though no one bothered to review the document, before it was submitted and published on the Internet. I wrote more about it, here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1257168041/Sloppy+Patent+Work+-+Critical+Care+Research

Steve Harris MD Drops Bombshell on Cold Filter Cryonics Forum

***Edited March 12, 2010, with note at the bottom.

On March 7, 2010, Steven B Harris MD, of Critical Care Research, a physician associated with both Alcor Life Extension Foundation and Suspended Animation, wrote the following, on the Cold Filter cryonics forum, in response to my questions about the drug propofol (Diprivan):

"We give 200 mg. There you are. If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268000067/Propofol+dose

In other words, they give an initial dose of 200mg propofol to people, at the time of "legal death." Then, in the event the person for whom they are providing cryonics services, (which include the application of CPR), shows signs of life, they give another 200mg dose of propofol, to render the person unconscious, so they can continue with their cryonics procedures. (The "we" in Harris' post refers to cryonics standby teams from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Suspended Animation, in Boynton Beach, Florida. Suspended Animation also provides standby services for Cryonics Institute, in Michigan.)

If they see signs of life, administer more propofol, and continue with their procedures, (which would result in death), could they be accused of murder? Since Harris' statement indicates this has been planned in advance, would it be premeditated murder? Are Baldwin, Kingston, Battiato, Sullivan, Schroeder or Ruc, (the last publicly-named employees of Suspended Animation), willing to administer that "reserve" dose of propofol to a person showing signs of life? What about Alcor paramedic, Aaron Drake? Are the licensed, certified perfusionists who have been working with Suspended Animation aware of this policy? Are they willing to be a part of it? What about Ben Best, the president of Cryonics Institute, who has been an enthusiastic advocate of Suspended Animation's services? Does he, or anyone else at Cryonics Institute, endorse this plan?

For several years, now, I have been questioning certain cryonics activities, especially those that appear to be "ticking time bombs," with the potential to bring down the entire cryonics industry. I firmly believe that, considering the amount of money being invested by Life Extension Foundation, (which provides funding for Suspended Animation, Critical Care Research and 21st Century Medicine), and Alcor, (which also receives some funding from Life Extension Foundation), cryonics activities could be carried out in a much more ethical, professional manner. I believe there are ways to provide services superior to those currently being provided, and in a manner that would not constantly draw accusations of unethical and/or illegal behaviors. Is it the goal of the organizations involved to protect the cryonics industry, by properly addressing issues, such as this one? Or, do they really think quashing people like Larry Johnson, and me, would solve all their problems? I've got news for them...for every person who complains about them, publicly, there are dozens who are taking other avenues to register their complaints.

Harris: "If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."

Maxim: Did Harris just write that, in the event a cryonics patient shows signs of life, the cryonics team is going to give them another dose of propofol? Shivering means the muscles are receiving signals from the hypothalamus and, as far as I know, legally dead people do not shiver. In fact, when people are subjected to hypothermia, they usually stop shivering even before they lose consciousness.

Note: On March 12, 2010, Steve Harris MD commented, further, on the use of propofol, in cryonics. He wrote:

"It is thus in cryonics that there is a theoretical possibility that a person in cardiac arrest who has been classed as legally dead might become aware of chest compression. We all hope this never happens, and part of the purpose of propofol is be sure that it does not."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268372701/I+Can%27t+Believe+You+Missed+This

Anyone who "becomes aware" is alive, and it is illegal to perform cryonics procedures on people who are alive. Harris has already stated that they keep 200mg of propofol in "reserve," in case the person shows signs of awareness (life). This strongly implies they fully intend to inject a living person with the drug propofol, so they can continue their cryonics procedures, in the event someone responds to their CPR efforts and regains consciousness.

The protocols need to be revised and, no, (in a response to a question in Harris' post), I am not suggesting waiting 10-15 minutes. If that is the only alternative Harris and his peers can come up with, they aren't thinking very hard. The problem with the status quo in cryonics, is they are not open to change, especially if it involves admitting they have been wrong, or changing any of the protocols and/or equipment they have designed.

Cryonics Medications (Propofol)

Steve Harris MD, of Critical Care Research, (also Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor, and an advisor to Cryonics Institute), and Mathew Sullivan, of Suspended Animation, (both funded by Life Extension Foundation/LEF), have argued that Alcor and Suspended Animation's use of propofol is not only legal, but humane. Is that true, or is it more handwaving gestures from a group of mostly unqualified people who like playing doctor with dead people, while charging $60K-$150K for their foolishness?

Mathew recently remarked that Suspended Animation doesn't carry enough volume of propofol, (or any other drug), to kill someone. Mathew's arguments seem to imply his employer, Suspended Animation of Boynton Beach, FL, intends to perform cryonics procedures, even if the chest compressions and oxygen (CPR techniques) they are administering happen to make someone's heart start beating again. Some of Alcor and Suspended Animation's protocols clearing indicate propofol is used to "maintain unconsciousness," not to "maintain death." It's illegal to perform cryonics procedures on living people, and dead people don't need sedation.

In light of previous accusations of murder, against cryonics care providers, it seems foolish to have a bunch of laymen transporting and administering propofol, (even to the "legally dead"). If the 20mg dose Suspended Animation has in their case reports is all they carry with them, Mathew is correct in that it's very unlikely they could be, successfully, accused of using it to kill someone, since that amount is far less than the normal loading anesthetic loading dose.

Mathew has put forth a scenario, where a cryonics team can't get the proper releases to remove a "legally dead" client, from a conventional medical facility setting. He talks about extended periods (hours) of applying CPR techniques, (chest compressions and oxygen), to warm patients. If their client's heart was to start beating, they would, legally, be required to halt their procedures. Is 20mg of propofol enough to keep someone's heart from beating? For how long? When used for anesthesia, in conventional medicine, propofol is given as a loading dose, followed by a maintainence drip.

When I suggested laymen should not be transporting, or administering, propofol, Mathew and Cold Filter's anonymous "FD" blew their gaskets, ranting about how I want cryonics patients to suffer, or claiming I am out to make cryonics activities illegal. (If they don't clean up their act, I think someone else will eventually fulfill that last accusation.)
.

SA's New Director

Quote from SA's February 13 News Bulletin, which has still not been published on their website, as of March 22:

"NEW BOARD MEMBER

Suspended Animation is pleased to announce that Steve Harris, M.D., has joined our Board of Directors. Dr. Harris, who is President of Critical Care Research, has been a medical advisor and consultant for Suspended Animation for a number of years and we are glad have him as a Director. His biosketch is posted on the Suspended Animation website."

Note: Keep in mind that the people who made Steve Harris the "President of Critical Care Research" are most likely the same people who have now made him a "Director" of SA. Either one of those decisions is most likely only as good, (or as bad), as the other.

Here are some excerpts of SA's new Director's Internet postings on : http://yarchive.net/med/insults.html

"When an anonymous ignoramous with no medical knowledge gets on the nets and starts giving fatal medical advice, there are many appropriate types of responses. Calling them a son of a bitch is one.

Steve Harris, M.D."

"Now I'm calling you an asshole. And a dickhead. You and your libel lawyer can go over those words, and figure out how you're going to prove to a jury that you're not either one. Actually, I hope you see a lawyer about all this. And have to pay a retainer. Perhaps he'll note to you that accusing me of malpractise in public actually is actionable, whereas my calling you a son of a bitch is not. And why. It'll be quite educational for you. Prick.

Steve Harris, M.D."

"I await the AMA's learned decision. And do be sure to include the entire context of the exchange, so that the folks at the AMA can take the opportunity to call you a cowardly asshole themselves, "Cinque".

Steven B. Harris, M.D."

"In your dreams, you medical misinformation-spreading anonymous cowardly cretinous creep. P.S. You're still a son of a bitch. On this matter, feel free to quote me to anybody you like. The AMA, the CMB, the AFL...Cinque, may you jump in a lake and be unable to swim, and may your mother be unable to summon help, as she runs, barking, along the shore.

Steve Harris, M.D."

Steve Harris used the excuse of "being human" as justification for his behavior, but I know dozens of physicians, and hundreds of humans, quite well, and I don't personally know anyone else who behaves as offensively, and unprofessionally, as he does.

Here's the new Director of SA falsely accusing me of stealing a form that never existed:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1189561040/Re-+Harris-+Ignorant+cryo+providers+hire+perfusionists

If you can tolerate his offensive style of writing, and have the patience to dig through his posts on the "Cold Filter" forum, you can also find him falsely accusing me of not addressing the cannulae at SA, not updating the standby kit that would be used for patients (the "A" kit), giving SA the "run around" about my past employment history/case experience, and perhaps a few more things. You can also find him admitting, on more than one occasion, that he had no way of knowing what went on, on a daily basis, at SA, while I was there. Therefore we can only be left believing this man made false accusations against another medical professional, based on gossip. I believe he and Charles Platt, (someone who did work at the SA facility while I was there), were working together, at the time, so make your own assumptions about where Harris' information came from. Now, read Charles Platt's statement, regarding those accusations:

I. Ms. Maxim did present her CV/resume to SA, via email, in February 2006. At no time during her affiliation with SA were her employment history, or credentials, questioned by myself or any other party, to the best of my knowledge. Ms. Maxim never refused to give information about her past work as a perfusionist, and I have every reason to believe she would have provided additional references and/or information, had she been asked.

II. I cannot recall whether Ms. Maxim signed a nondisclosure agreement, and I have no way of knowing where various documents were kept at SA. Therefore I have no evidence to suggest that she removed such documents from the office. If my past speculation implied improprieties on her part, I apologize.

III. Although Ms. Maxim was not hired initially as General Manager, she proved to have such exceptional people skills, modesty, and balanced judgment, I have become convinced that she would have been the best possible manager, and I deeply regret that I never had the opportunity to work for her personally.

IV. The perfusion circuit in the "A" kit was not an "old version" when Ms. Maxim resigned from SA. One month after she became a fulltime employee, she and another SA employee replaced the circuit in the "A" kit with the perfusion circuit Ms. Maxim had designed for SA, as a consultant. The new circuit included a hardshell reservoir and other modifications. My public statements that the circuit was an "old version" were based on the fact that the plastic holder for the circuit was the old version. The holder, in no way, affects the performance of the circuit, and would have been fine the way it was.

V. Ms. Maxim did offer valuable advice, regarding cannulae, but unfortunately lacked authority to implement that advice by making substitutions in standby kits. I do not know which cannulae ended up in the kits at various times, but I certainly agree that Ms. Maxim was not responsible for the inventory when a case occurred five (5) months after her resignation.

VI. Immediately after her resignation from SA, I was dismayed and concerned when Aschwin de Wolf and Saul Kent told me that she would be unavailable for any future cases. I am delighted to learn that she is now available, and she would clearly be an asset who would be welcomed by any standby team. Since she was not asked to participate in the case during 2007, naturally I do not blame her for failing to do so, and I apologize if any remarks created this impression.

Charles Platt

February 12, 2008
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1202871615/Agreement+between+Melody+Maxim+and+Charles+Platt

If you weed through even more of Steve Harris' posts, you can find him calling me "a nit and a naif" for not believing the cardiovascular surgeons I worked with in the 90's were earning $50,000 a case. (The surgeons I worked with were paid $4,000 a case, about average, for the time.) If anyone is a "nit and a naif," it's Harris, himself.

You can also find him demanding I show HIM my credentials, six-to-eight months after I resigned from SA, when he had no authority at that company. I'm sure most people found this as unreasonable and absurd as I did.

I believe Harris was trying to imply he wasn't doing well as a physician, in outpatient geriatrics, in Utah, because no one was, in this post: http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1189640802/Thought+I+heard+a+breeze+from+some+electrons
We live in an aging population, and he wasn't doing well in geriatrics? Why didn't he just move to Florida? I'm sure there are plenty of old folks to go around, here. My guess is, Harris shifted his focus to cryonics, rather than conventional medicine, for reasons other than a lack of geriatric patients, (and my guess isn't "commitment to the advancement of the field of cryonics").

Let's see...what else...

Oh...there's a post where Harris pretends like I was negligent for not connecting a blender and compressed gases to the vitrification circuit in SA's "operating room," a circuit that was a filthy prototype that included an oxygenator that had expired more than a decade before I worked there, and hasn't been manufactured in many years. Never mind that it has yet to be proven there is any benefit from administering oxygen, or any other gas, during the vitrification process. There was no need for compressed air, or a gas blender, to be connected to that circuit. Harris apparently didn't know how foolish he was making himself look, in his attempts to discredit me.

And, finally, the "kicker"...
SA was relying on Harris, as the acting medical consultant to talk a golf pro and two fabricators through performing whole-body perfusion, and other medical procedures, over the telephone, during Cryonics Institute's "CI-81" case. Harris stated he would have instructed the SA team to give more heparin, during that case, IF THEY HAD ASKED HIM. Does anybody reading this think an M.D. should believe a golf pro and two shop workers would know to ask??!!! Make note that in this same post, Harris takes credit for helping to design the protocols that call for a "whopping dose of heparin," yet he did not make sure the patient got that "whopping" loading dose, nor the required maintenance doses. (Heparin prevents blood from clotting.) Read all about it, here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1189483014/Re-+Misquotations+and+Creative+Writing

IS THIS THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP CRYONICISTS WANT FOR THE COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FUTURE CRYOPRESERVATION OF THEMSELVES AND/OR THEIR LOVED ONES???

Keep in mind that not everyone who has the letters "MD" after their name behaves competently, responsibly, and/or ethically.

Rapid Cooling in Cryonics

The protocols regarding the rate of cooling have been debated amongst prominent researchers interested in hypothermic techniques, for many decades, with no clear answer. What is known is that rapid cooling and/or warming can lead to gaseous emboli, and that maintaining a temperature gradient of 10°C, or less, during the cooling of human patients provides a proven margin of safety. Cardiac surgeons truly hate the time spent waiting for the patient to be cooled and rewarmed. If they could shorten this time by using rapid cooling, they certainly would, yet the 10°C safety margin is adhered to in heart surgery, all around the world.

I employed hypothermic techniques on an almost-daily basis, for many years, cooling most patients to 28 - 32°C. I also participated in a significant number of profound hypothermia cases, where our patients were cooled to below 18°C and then exsanguinated. I saw the vast majority of our patients wake up, neurologically intact. Some of them had minor neurological deficits that turned out to be transient. Would they have had any benefit from being cooled more rapidly? It's doubtful. Would they have suffered greater cerebral injury if cooled rapidly. I believe that's probable.

Yes, the risk of micro-air emboli is greater with rapid warming than rapid cooling, but warming and cooling always take place at the same time. While the heat exchanger in the perfusion circuit is cooling the patient, the patient functions as a heat exchanger, warming the perfusate that comes to the body, and vice versa.

In Dr. Harris' June 22, 2007 "Great Expectations" post on the Cold Filter Forum, he stated, "I do not believe you will find any support in the literature for your contention that too-rapid cooling is to be avoided while on bypass. But I could be wrong, so show me."

For Dr. Harris to have not ever seen any literature supporting the avoidance of too-rapid cooling on bypass, he must not have looked, at all. It's out there, and it's plentiful. Here are just a few examples:

The Manual of Clinical Perfusion
Second Edition Updated
By Bryan V. Lich, CCP and D. Mark Brown, CCP

If cooling is used a temperature gradient less than 10°C between the arterial and venous blood is maintained. This prevents the formation of microbubbles. (Page 75.)

***

University of Michigan Medical Center
C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital
Protocols and Guidelines for Pediatric Perfusion

Upon initiation of CPB, the perfusionist cools the patient maintaining an 8 - 12°C temperature gradient between the perfusate and rectal and/or nasopharyngeal temperature whichever is highest. This technique avoids the generation of gaseous emboli when the solubility in the blood of atmospheric gases is lowered by excessive rewarming of the perfusate in the tissue.
http://www.amsect.org/pediatric/protocols/mott.pdf (Page 59)

***

Myocardial Protection and Cardiopulmonary Bypass
CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS

1. The Circulatory Environment

B. Heat exchanger· The cooling or warming gradient is usually within 10-14 degrees of the patient’s temperature· This minimizes the tendency for gas to come out of solution and risk of air embolism· Mixed blood temperature should be less than or equal to 38.5C· The water bath should stay between 15 and 42C to prevent organ damage (too cold) and hemolysis (too warm)
Maintain a gradient of 4-6C, as rapid cooling produces uneven cerebral cooling
http://www.ctsnet.org/doc/2220

***

From Ben Best’s Website:

Cell survival generally drops to zero for cooling rates that are either too rapid or too slow, giving an "inverted U curve". Excessively fast cooling rates kill cells by osmotic damage to membranes caused by pressure & friction from the exiting water molecules. Or excessively fast cooling allows for formation of ice inside cells -- which is far more damaging than extracellular ice. There is evidence that plasma membrane damage due to excessive osmotic pressure creates holes in the membrane allowing ice to form intracellularly [BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL; Muldrew,K; 66(2 Pt 1):532-541 (1994)]. If cooling is too slow, however, cells will be killed either by prolonged exposure to the toxic concentrations of electrolytes that form outside the cell or by mechanical crushing from extracellular ice.
http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/cooling.html (Note: The link to the Muldrew paper is incorrect; here’s a new link to that article: http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/66/2_Pt_1/532 )

***

Cerebral consequences of hypothermic circulatory arrest in adults.
EB Griepp, RB GrieppDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York 10029.

“At present, risk factors associated with less favorable cerebral outcome after HCA include: prolonged duration of HCA (usually greater than 60 min); advanced patient age; rapid cooling…”
http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=1606366 (HCA = hypothermic circulatory arrest)

***

Australia and New Zealand College of Perfusionists
Notes in Clinical Perfusion

Hypothermia & CPB
rate of cooling & warming and the effect on monitored temperatures

Temperature management entails 3 principles:
1) During both cooling & rewarming a maximum of 10°C is maintained between the water temperature (of the heater-cooler) and the blood temperature

a)Too rapid cooling may be associated with cerebral injury [eg cerebral vasoconstriction may be associated with reduced uniform cooling of brain)

b)Too rapid rewarming may be associated with the danger of gas bubble formation as gases become less soluble in blood as temperature increases + critical post ischaemic period characterised by high cerebrovascular resistance -impaired autoregulation & high cerebral metabolic demand for oxygen

2)Secondly, once the desired patient temperature has been reached, a further 10 minutes at least is required at this temperature to allow for uniform cooling of brain when cooling & uniform warming of body when rewarming

3) Once on HCA, must reduce rewarming-maintain hypothermia: use cooling blanket
· Is important to ensure cooling is not done too rapidly and once have reached target temperature a further interval of cooling is achieved prior to circulatory arrest to allow for uniform cooling of the brain and other vascular organs
http://www.perfusion.com.au/CCP/Details%20in%20perfusion%20technique/Hypothermia%20&%20CPB.htm

***

The effect of cooling rate during perfusion on function and morphology of rabbit kidney grafts.
Jacobsen IA, Chemnitz J, Kemp E, Buhl MR.

"The effect of cooling of rabbit kidneys during the initial flush with Collins' solution for simple hypothermic storage was studied. After cooling at an average rate of 3.7 degrees C/min. graft function was found to be immediately life-sustaining, and renal morphology after perfusion as well as 30 min. and 24 hours posttransplant was found to be normal. Posttransplant function after cooling at a rate of 7.2 degrees C/min. was significantly lower, permitting survival of only 30% of recipient animals, and damage was seen in proximal tubular cells."
PMID: 7013052 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(My note: In summary, faster cooling rates led to cellular damage and lowered survival rate.)

I understand that rapid cooling may be an "necessary evil," in regard to the vitrification process, as the solutions being used are more toxic at higher temperatures. However, I question the wisdom of rapid cooling during the washout procedure, while the patient has either blood or the biocompatible washout solution in their circulation. I've seen many patients wake up, neurologically intact, after being cooled to clinical death, below 18°C, and left that way for a period of time. I think it's reasonable to assume a patient could slowly be cooled to near zero, for the washout procedure, with the same amount of safety.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe it will ever be proven that rapid cooling to near zero C is as safe, or safer, than adhering to the proven safety guidelines that were established in surgical hypothermia protocols, long ago. I'm still concerned when I see Platt's statements about the cooling abilities of his "Liquid Ventilation" system on the Suspended Animation web site: “Typically a descent from 25 degrees Celsius (78 Fahrenheit) to 3 degrees celsius (37.4 Fahrenheit) takes less than five minutes. The system is then ready for use."

Does this mean they are applying this technique to a still warm patient when the liquid is at 3°C? Is it wise to flush fluid at 3°C into a patient at near 37°C, (using their lungs as a heat exchanger and greatly exceeding the 10°C safety gradient). There are studies that indicate rapid cooling may not be as damaging as it has been thought to be, but is it worth the risk at this point in time? Cardiac surgeons and perfusionists all around the world think it is not. Does Charles Platt even care? Or is he just interested in as many design and fabrication hours as he can get and taking credit for the design of new equipment, no matter how ill-advised?

I do think the idea of using lung lavage for initial cooling of cryonics patients could be of value when it is not possible to immediately place the patient on bypass. However, I think the cryonics protocols for cooling AND post-ischemic oxygenation, (another topic I will address, soon, on this blog), via lung lavage/liquid ventilation, should be more carefully examined.