For FD's "Paradigm of Secrecy" Theory

I was looking for references to a certain individual, and I came across an old issue of "Cryonics," from October 1981. I thought FD, over on Cold Filter, might find this segment of interest:

"4. Prospective members will not have to be told that the "cost" of
cryonic suspension is $50,000 or $75,000 -- only that they have to pay a
yearly, quarterly, or monthly fee." (Written by Saul Kent.)
http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics8110.txt

What else did the powers that be think prospective members, (or even active members), did "not have to be told," back in 1981? What about now? Do Mr. Kent and his friends, (the people who, in my opinion, have funded and directed a vast amount of incompetence, over several decades), STILL think there is no need for prospective members, active members, or anyone else, to know the details of what goes on, in the operation of the cryonics organizations they fund?

Peach Pits and Propofol

Recently, having not been satisfied with the rationale that supports cryonics organizations allowing laymen to have access to, transport, and administer propofol, (something I think is foolish and unnecesssary), I brought up the topic, again, on the Cold Filter forum. I threw out "propofol," and got back "peach pits" and "water," from one of those "cryonics professionals," (Mathew Sullivan), at Suspended Animation, a cryonics care provider, in Boynton Beach, Florida. http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1265910890/Apples%2C+peaches%2C+and+more%2C+as+a+controlled+substance

In addition to the very lame, "anything can be lethal, in sufficient quantity" argument, Mathew also put forth that my expressions of concern, in regard to laymen, (who are associated with two organizations that have been accused of numerous unethical, unprofessional and illegal activities), handling certain medications, were equivalent to calling in bomb threats.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1265992986/Reckless+disregard+for+others
See my response, here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1266024246/Too+Ridiculous+Not+to+Comment+On)
During the discussion of propofol, Mathew foolishly advised readers of the Cold Filter forum that: "If by chance you don't know what sodium chloride for injection is, you can think of it as sterile water." Normal saline can safely be injected in large amounts, while the injection of sterile water, without the appropriate additives, will lead to hemolysis, (the destruction of red blood cells). To suggest that normal saline and sterile water are the same is ignorant and/or reckless. This is what happens when people, without the proper education and training, think they know more than they really do.

During the course of the discussion, Mathew made an even more bizarre statement: "In the real world, CPS turning into CPR equates to practicing medicine." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1266290895/Living+cells+in+brains+and+metabolism...
Mathew's remark was incorrect, in two very obvious ways: "In the real world," CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) IS (a form of) CPS (cardiopulmonary support), and CPR does not equate to "practicing medicine." When I pointed out the obvious flaws in his logic, Mathew then tried to distract from his foolish mistakes, by asking if I think, "...if revival does occur, then we can invoke the Good Samaritan law without ANY legal consequence to the cryonics company involved or any of the individual team members..." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1266379082/Re-+I+hate+to+tell+Mathew+this...

This would be true, only if they were going to abandon their cryonics procedures if someone's heart started beating. The anonymous "FD," on the Cold Filter forum, claims the propofol will prevent this from happening.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1266530085/How+many+definitions+of+%26quot%3Bdead%26quot%3B+would+you+like-

Is that accurate information? Or will the dose they are administering only render unconsciousness, and only for a short time? It doesn't seem logical to claim that "not enough propofol to kill anyone," is enough to "keep someone dead."

Do the patient care providers, for companies such as Alcor and Suspended Animation, ever question the protocols and/or equipment? Most of them seem to be laymen, who don't know enough to question medications protocols, blindly following orders. They have a "one size fits all" meds protocol, and none of them appear to know to ask simple questions, such as, "Do any of the drugs require maintainence dosing?"

To top it all off, they have advisors, such as Steve Harris MD, publicly stating he didn't tell a cryonics team, comprised solely of laymen, to give maintainence doses of heparin, to CI-81, because "they didn't ask." Brilliant...send a bunch of laymen, who know nothing about medicine, and then don't tell them anything, unless they ask. It's the cryo-way.

I resigned from SA, in early 2007, and Aschwin de Wolf resigned, not long after that. I would say that, after Aschwin and I were gone, Mathew was probably the remaining staff member who was most knowledgeable about the medical procedures being used in cryonics. Sadly, Mathew's public statements reflect his lack of general knowledge about medicine, and his inability to engage in a rational discussion, regarding medical issues related to cryonics.

Cryonics protocols need to undergo drastic changes, but people like Mathew and most of his peers aren't even capable of having intelligent, well-informed discussions, on medically-related topics. The people who designed the protocols seem to feel as though their job was done, a long time ago. Was their goal to do what is best for each and every individual who wants to be cryopreserved, or was it to simply design a protocol that would impress the people paying for cryonics "research"?

Do the medical professionals the organizations are bringing onboard, (in response to harsh criticism, regarding laymen performing procedures), care enough about cryonics to question the protocols and equipment, or are most of them simply doing what they are told, in exchange for some very healthy consulting fees? It's been my experience that questioning the protocols and equipment is a good way to get run out of cryonics. As an SA staff member, who knew nothing about medicine, used to ask, in response to suggestions from qualified paramedics, "Why don't they just do what we tell them to do? We pay them, after all."

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.)
.

Alcor's "Trade Secrets" - Vitrification Solution Recipes

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

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

Includes the recipe for "M22," as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Court Documents

Recently, Mathew Sullivan of Suspended Animation, in Boynton Beach, Florida, and the anonymous "FD," who frequently participates on the "Cold Filter" cryonics forum, criticized me for not posting recent information regarding the Alcor vs. Johnson/Baldyga/Vanguard Press lawsuits. The truth is, I had not even read the documents, since they had yet to be posted on the Internet court site I monitor. During the course of three days, (February 2-4), four documents containing a total of 103 pages were posted. On February 6, before I was even aware of the documents, FD and Mathew took to pretending I was not commenting on them, because I didn't like the contents. People in cryonics are good at pretending.

One of the documents they are gloating over contains the testimony of Brian Wowk, which is incomplete, in that Johnson's attorneys have yet to cross-examine him. It appears they did not cross-examine him, because they were unaware he was going to testify that day, and they didn't even have an opportunity to depose him, beforehand. If they do get around to cross-examining him, in the future, as the judge suggested, there are many statements they should pay attention to. I find the documents, (like many legal documents), to be ridiculously long and boring, so I am not going to spend all day pouring over them, but there were a couple of things that caught my eye, as I was scrolling through them. Here is just one example:

Alcor's attorney: "Is it a true statement that Ted Williams' head was used for batting practice at the Alcor facility?

Dr. Wulk (sic): "No, that's absolutely false. I personally know the individual who was alleged to have done that, Hugh Hixson (sic). He's a scientist like myself who takes the field of cryonics very seriously. He is incapable of such an act, as am I."

Now, we all know the "batting practice" remark was a sensationalistic metaphor used to describe Hixon attempting to dislodge a tuna can that had been frozen to Mr. Williams' head. We all know Johnson's claim is that Hixon was attempting to dislodge the tuna can with a wrench, and accidentally struck Mr. Williams' head. We all know Johnson didn't really mean to give anyone the impression that the Alcor personnel was having a real "batting practice" with Mr. Williams' head. In fact, I believe it was the media, not Larry Johnson, who came up with the "batting practice" remark. I know it, and I can't help but believe Alcor and Dr. Wowk know it, since anyone of reasonable intelligence who has read the book and seen the interviews could figure it out. To make his testimony even more laughable, Dr. Wowk complained about Johnson presenting things "out of context," in a magazine article. Isn't that exactly what Alcor's attorneys and Dr. Wowk were doing, in a court of law, when they discussed the media's "batting practice" comments?

Dr. Wowk put forth that Johnson's book is "...400 pages of privacy violation, disparagement and defamation that presents false and misleading information in a manner constructed to be as harmful to Alcor as possible."

I'll have to disagree with that. A lot of those 400 pages contain the transcripts of tapes of Alcor's own staff members, (including the COO, the vice president, and an Alcor senior board member), describing Alcor allegedly engaging in unethical and illegal activities. Was that information false? I doubt it, but if it is, Dr. Wowk should take it up with his esteemed colleagues, such as Hixon, Platt and Hovey.

Are the case notes of the cryopreservation of Ted Williams a "privacy violation"? Probably, but let's put that in context. One of Alcor's own personnel, at the time, complained about many people, who had no reason for even being there, milling about, snapping their photos with Mr. Williams' body, (or maybe just the head). Maybe Dr. Wowk could ask former Alcor COO, Charles Platt, about his email to Larry Johnson, in which he (Platt) claims to have photos of the Ted Williams case stored in a safe deposit box.

If I were Johnson's attorney, I would definitely cross-examine Wowk. I would read the excerpt of the book, in which Johnson clearly indicates Hixon was attempting to dislodge the tuna can, and then I would ask Dr. Wowk if it was Mr. Johnson, or the media, who used the term "batting practice." I would also ask Dr. Wowk why his fellow scientist, Hugh Hixon, would make a statement that a drug was used "To kill (Alcor patients)," or make jokes about one of his co-workers expediting the death of a patient, so the Alcor team could "beat the traffic." Then I would play every tape Johnson has of Hixon, and ask Dr. Wowk if he could possibly explain why his upstanding colleague would make such remarks. I mean, if Hixon takes the "field of cryonics (so) very seriously," as Dr. Wowk claims, then the court should probably assume the statements he made about drugs being used to kill people during cryonics cases should be taken very seriously, should it not? I would make it clear, to the judge, that I thought Alcor's attorneys and witnesses were misrepresenting some of the contents of Johnson's book.

If I were to read the entire document, I could probably go on, all day, about how I think Alcor is being deceptive, (because that IS what I think). And, if I had a stake in Johnson's case, (as Mathew and FD seem to think I do), I would rush to my computer each morning to tear apart those documents line-by-line, and post them on my blog, knowing at least one of Johnson's attorneys reads my posts. Johnson's NY attorneys seem really sharp, but I'm not so sure about his Arizona attorneys, and it seems the NY judge may rule, based on what the Arizona courts rule. Regardless, that's Johnson's problem, not mine. TWrelated is right, not enough people really care about the outcome of the Johnson case, including me, since I expect a decision, in either direction, will be rather anti-climactic. While Johnson's sensationalistic book got the world's attention, for 15 minutes, I believe it was only a catalyst for a few other reactions that will forever change the face of cryonics, (hopefully, in a positive way).

Now, would FD and Mathew really like for me to keep reviewing the blasted legal documents, or would they be okay with them if I went back to ignoring most of them, as I have been doing, for many weeks, now? I really have better things to do.

Engineering / Research and Development

Recently, my husband was working with a consultant, who reminded me of certain people working in cryonics. He was supposed to be helping my husband produce a working prototype of a toy. There were some small parts, which were not functioning as they were supposed to. He suggested metal-plating the parts, as a possible solution. My husband had me call around, to see if I could find someone local, to plate the parts, and I found a company that would do a batch, for $500. The consultant said he was not sure if the particular method they were using would produce the right results. He wanted to order a lot of expensive materials, and try various methods on his own and, as far as I know, he has no experience with this type of work. As I told my husband, "It would be stupid to pay Mr. X a very healthy hourly rate to teach himself how to do a process plenty of other people already know how to do." We have a deadline, and a budget. Cryonics has a DEADline, too, and it's foolish to be paying people to "research and develop" equipment that already exists, so they can produce cheesy DIY versions of existing technology.

Alcor vs. Johnson Update

There's some sort of hearing, today, in the Alcor vs. Johnson case, in New York. I am not an attorney, but it appears Alcor is attempting to amend their case to add defamation claims, and to "domesticate the Arizona Judgment pursuant to Order of this Court dated December 11, 2009." I fall asleep reading legal documents, but I believe the Arizona judgment relates to some sort of prior negotiation of an agreement, between Johnson and Alcor.

It seems Johnson and Alcor negotiated an agreement that they would pay him to keep his mouth shut, a long time ago, but he never signed the typed document, or cashed the check. In Alcor's favor, it appears Johnson did sign a handwritten document, though I'm not sure how binding that is. I think the Arizona judge recently ruled that the agreement stands, but Johnson is appealing that decision. (I haven't even tried to find the Arizona court documents, lately, but some were included with the NY documents, and I breezed through them, a while back.)

I am amused by some of the statements, in Alcor's filings, such as "Alcor is a pioneer in medical research..." I wonder how many medical research scientists would agree with that. My guess is, not many other than those being paid by LEF. Personally, I think they are a joke, and their so-called surgeries have been a mockery of modern hypothermic medicine.

Alcor's attorneys seem to be attempting to persuade the judge that most of what goes on at Alcor is "highly confidential, trade secrets and proprietary...," but I disagree with that. They appear to have published most of their insanity, over the years. They go on, at length, about Johnson signing the Employee Handbook, which they claim was some sort of confidentiality agreement, but, as I recall, Johnson's attorneys maintain that the handbook clearly states it does not constitute any sort of binding legal agreement.

The portion of Alcor's argument that really discredits them, in my eyes, is the part where they put forth that Johnson signed an NDA, that it was kept in his office, and that he stole it when he left, based upon an affidavit from Charles Platt. The exact same lies were told about me, (by the same person), when I left SA. I never signed an NDA, and my employee file, (which I never had access to), was certainly not kept in my office. The same thing is probably true, regarding the illusory (non-existent) Johnson NDA.

Alcor lists 32 specific statements from the book which they say are false, but I think some of those statements can be traced back to Johnson's taped conversations with Alcor's personnel, (Platt, Hixon, Hovey, etc.) If Alcor now maintains statements made by their personnel were false, how was Johnson to know that? Who is actually responsible for the alleged "lies"? I think Alcor makes a few good points, but it might behoove them to leave out the fiction, and quit holding Johnson responsible for stories told by their own personnel.

Alcor has now asked for a jury trial, (something Johnson did, a while back). That should be extremely interesting, should it ever happen. Personally, I think Alcor would have a very difficult time proving their "trade secret" arguments, or holding Mr. Johnson responsible for statements their own employees made, in taped conversations. They may "win," based on the handwritten agreement, but what will it cost them?

So far, all Alcor has accomplished has been to get the judge to prevent Johnson from discussing anything that was not in the book. We'll see what happens, today.

Melody Maxim