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."
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Truth About Suspended Animation's "Success"
Recently, Charles Platt, a former manager and director of Suspended Animation (SA) wrote a Cryonet post, in which he took credit for saving that company from extinction, defended their equipment, and bragged about their "progress" and recent case performance. I've been wanting to take the time to respond to that post, but it appears to have been deleted from the queue, before being posted. Regardless, this was not the first time Mr. Platt has made these assertions, so they are easy to recall. In examining Mr. Platt's assessment, of Suspended Animation (SA), it's important to recognize SA's goal of providing "standby, stabilization and transport," for what it is.
The "standby" portion of their goal requires sending staff members, or associated personnel, to a client's bedside, in the hopes of immediately placing that person in an ice bath, administering certain medications, and circulating the client's blood (to distribute the medications and facilitate cooling), just after legal death has been pronounced. Provided that conventional medical personnel have left IV lines in place, these tasks require only a minimal amount of training, and just about anyone of reasonable intelligence could perform them. The key problem with this step is arriving prior to legal death, since not many people know ahead of time, when they will die.
The "stabilization" portion of SA's services requires the cannulation of an artery and a vein, so that a perfusion circuit can be used to replace the blood with an organ preservation solution, which will then be circulated, (via the perfusion circuit), while the client is cooled to near zero degrees Celsius. These tasks are critical, and require skilled personnel, who can perform a good vascular cannulation in a timely fashion, and who can perform perfusion without causing injury to the patient. (The improper use of a perfusion circuit can result in devastating injury to the patient, and a patient cannot be properly perfused without a good cannulation.)
The "transport" portion of SA's services requires being able to pack the client in a manner that will keep his/her temperature as close to zero, as possible, and transport them to CI, or Alcor, (while abiding by applicable local and federal laws, of course). While this requires a lot of diligence and planning, it's not something that requires special clinical skills related to performing medical procedures.
Most reasonably intelligent persons could easily be trained to perform the "standby" and "transport" procedures, but the same is not true of the "stabilization" procedures, which require a proper education and extensive clinical training, under the supervision of qualified, competent instructors. Femoral cannulations and perfusion are safely performed, all around the world, on a daily basis, by competent personnel. A small percentage of these cases include cooling patients to deep hypothermia (below 18 degrees C) and removing them from all forms of support, for procedures that require the cessation of blood flow. These people are "technically" dead, while the procedure is taking place, and then they are warmed and revived. These procedures have been successfully performed, for decades, and what SA is attempting to do should mimic those procedures, for the most part. SA's cannulation procedures should be identical to those that have been performed, by vascular surgeons in conventional medicine, millions of times, yet SA continues to botch these procedures, to this day. In regard to perfusion, the only differences from conventional medical procedures will be the removal of the blood, (which only involves opening and closing a couple of clamps), and the degree of cooling, (variations a skilled perfusionist would be capable of performing, with less than five minutes of prior instruction). The bottom line to all this is: SA's goal is something conventional medical professionals have been capable of providing, for many decades, and SA should have made use of such personnel, and the equipment associated with proven hypothermic procedures. They have the necessary funding.
As of June 2007, SA's CEO, Saul Kent, had been involved in cryonics for more than 30 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kent ) and SA's manager, Charles Platt, had been involved for approximately 17 years, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Platt_(author) ). At various times, Mr. Platt was the co-founder and president of CryoCare, the COO of Alcor, and a director and manager of Suspended Animation. In June 2007, SA had been in existence for approximately five years, with an annual budget exceeding one million dollars. Though Mr. Platt may claim he was not the "manager" of SA for entirety of the three years leading up to June 2007, I believe he directed most of SA's activities during much of that time, (and I'm certain there are others who would agree with that assessment).
In June 2007, on behalf of SA and Mr. Kent, Mr. Platt sent three laymen, with no medical experience, whatsoever, to perform medical procedures, which are most likely to cause serious injury to patients, when performed by unqualified persons. Mr. Platt seems to think the two-three years leading up to, and culminating in, that event, constitute a success story. In truth, for two men with a combined 47 years of cryonics experience, (not to mention decades of advice from other "cryonics experts"), and more-than ample funding, with the goal being to provide surgical procedures that were virtually perfected in conventional medicine many decades ago, there could be no finer example of a more miserable failure.
While Mr. Platt may have been successful in getting LEF to continue pouring more than a million dollars a year into SA, I think his assessment of their "success" is more than a little misguided. The medical professionals I know, who perform procedures virtually identical to those being attempted by SA, would not have been impressed with the activities I witnessed at SA. Like me, they would have tried to change things, and would have been baffled by Mr. Platt's resistance to change. Like me, their suggestions for change would have most likely been met with extremely subversive and unprofessional behavior, which I believe was intended to undermine any efforts to re-direct the focus of SA away from Mr. Platt's own design and fabrication projects, in favor of proven existing equipment much less costly than Mr. Platt's projects.
Judging by what I've heard, and read, I don't think SA has accomplished much of significance, since June 2007, and as a follow-up to this post, I will soon be writing a review of SA's CI-95 case report, on my blog.
(This is not meant to be a personal attack on Mr. Platt, but a criticism of his assessment of SA as a "success." I consider Mr. Platt to be very intelligent and a gifted journalist/author, but I believe he is, at best, misguided, in regard to his work related to hypothermic medical science/cryonics. If I have criticized him more than I have criticized others, it is because of my firsthand experiences working with him, at SA, and because he persists in defending professional decisions I consider to be indefensible. There will be no progress, in cryonics, for so long as the people with the most influence continue to believe they are making progress, when they have yet to come up to speed with that which existed, decades ago.)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Johnson/Baldyga/Vanguard Attorneys (NY)
Regardless of the outcome, in the Alcor vs. Johnson et. al. case, my comment to the defendants' attorneys, (in response to their recently-filed court documents), would be:
"YOU GUYS ROCK!!!"
Certain cryonics activities need to be exposed to the "light of day," in my opinion. If they can get their case in front of a jury; bring in medical experts familiar with existing hypothermic arrest procedures and engineers familiar with the related medical equipment; expose Alcor's "surgeons" and other "medical personnel" for what they really are(n't); a couple of financial experts who could explain that these companies DO have the money to provide a much higher standard of care; and maybe a few experts in ethics and psychiatry....
Well, who knows, what might happen...but it would surely be an interesting ball game...one even Ted Williams might have appreciated.
"YOU GUYS ROCK!!!"
Certain cryonics activities need to be exposed to the "light of day," in my opinion. If they can get their case in front of a jury; bring in medical experts familiar with existing hypothermic arrest procedures and engineers familiar with the related medical equipment; expose Alcor's "surgeons" and other "medical personnel" for what they really are(n't); a couple of financial experts who could explain that these companies DO have the money to provide a much higher standard of care; and maybe a few experts in ethics and psychiatry....
Well, who knows, what might happen...but it would surely be an interesting ball game...one even Ted Williams might have appreciated.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Hyperbole / Rhetorical Exaggerations
From Alcor's Second Amended Complaint (against Johnson, et. al.), dated December 30, 1999:
133. The statements made and published by the Defendants was done with the intent and purpose of injuring and discrediting ALCOR and did subject ALCOR to public ridicule and contempt, including persons who stated in the public domain that they “believed every word of it.” http://www.alcor.org/Library/pdfs/NewYorkComplaintAmendedJan2010.pdf
I believe Alcor is quoting me, in the above complaint, against Johnson et. al. If they are not, they might as well be, because I believe I wrote that exact statement, (which was subsequently edited), in a book review, on Amazon.com. Regardless of whom they are quoting, let's compare two readers of the same book:
"Reader A" believes most of the author's firsthand accounts of events, in the book, to be true, because she had similar experiences, while working with some of the same people as the author. "Person A" also believes the author's repetition of secondhand stories to be a fairly accurate reflection of stories, which were told to him, because "Person A" heard some of the same stories, from other people, prior to the book being published, and without knowing the author, (in fact, while thinking the author was deceased).
"Person B," who frequently works with organizations and persons criticized in the book, believes much of the information in the book to be false.
Aren't Person A's comment, that she "believes every word" of the book, and Person B's comment, that he thinks the book is "400 pages of lies," similar in that they are hyperbolic statements/rhetorical exaggerations? (Let's face it, both of those are unlikely to be entirely accurate, which is why I ("Person A") edited my remark, soon after making it.)
If Alcor's attorneys are quoting me, do they plan on telling the judge that the person who believes most of what is in the book to be, basically, true is a medical professional, experienced in hypothermic procedures, who worked in cryonics, or do they want the judge to believe the comment came from someone who may have been a potential Alcor client? If they are quoting me, do they plan on telling the judge the person who made the statements publicly made many harsh statements, regarding what she believes to be unethical and unprofessional activities, in cryonics, including some connected to Alcor and/or people with strong ties to Alcor, prior to reading the book?
If people are going to quote me, please put my comments in the proper context. At Suspended Animation, I worked with two of the same people, who worked with Mr. Johnson, at Alcor. Some of Mr. Johnson's experiences, while working in cryonics, were similar to my own, and I heard some of the secondhand stories he printed, from people working with me, at Suspended Animation. For the most part, the Johnson/Baldyga book only reinforced opinions I had already formed, before the book was published.
I think it's also important to note that Person A (I) made my comments in an informal book review, on Amazon.com, while Person B, (Dr. Brian Wowk of 21st Century Medicine), made his comments in a legal setting, under oath.
133. The statements made and published by the Defendants was done with the intent and purpose of injuring and discrediting ALCOR and did subject ALCOR to public ridicule and contempt, including persons who stated in the public domain that they “believed every word of it.” http://www.alcor.org/Library/pdfs/NewYorkComplaintAmendedJan2010.pdf
I believe Alcor is quoting me, in the above complaint, against Johnson et. al. If they are not, they might as well be, because I believe I wrote that exact statement, (which was subsequently edited), in a book review, on Amazon.com. Regardless of whom they are quoting, let's compare two readers of the same book:
"Reader A" believes most of the author's firsthand accounts of events, in the book, to be true, because she had similar experiences, while working with some of the same people as the author. "Person A" also believes the author's repetition of secondhand stories to be a fairly accurate reflection of stories, which were told to him, because "Person A" heard some of the same stories, from other people, prior to the book being published, and without knowing the author, (in fact, while thinking the author was deceased).
"Person B," who frequently works with organizations and persons criticized in the book, believes much of the information in the book to be false.
Aren't Person A's comment, that she "believes every word" of the book, and Person B's comment, that he thinks the book is "400 pages of lies," similar in that they are hyperbolic statements/rhetorical exaggerations? (Let's face it, both of those are unlikely to be entirely accurate, which is why I ("Person A") edited my remark, soon after making it.)
If Alcor's attorneys are quoting me, do they plan on telling the judge that the person who believes most of what is in the book to be, basically, true is a medical professional, experienced in hypothermic procedures, who worked in cryonics, or do they want the judge to believe the comment came from someone who may have been a potential Alcor client? If they are quoting me, do they plan on telling the judge the person who made the statements publicly made many harsh statements, regarding what she believes to be unethical and unprofessional activities, in cryonics, including some connected to Alcor and/or people with strong ties to Alcor, prior to reading the book?
If people are going to quote me, please put my comments in the proper context. At Suspended Animation, I worked with two of the same people, who worked with Mr. Johnson, at Alcor. Some of Mr. Johnson's experiences, while working in cryonics, were similar to my own, and I heard some of the secondhand stories he printed, from people working with me, at Suspended Animation. For the most part, the Johnson/Baldyga book only reinforced opinions I had already formed, before the book was published.
I think it's also important to note that Person A (I) made my comments in an informal book review, on Amazon.com, while Person B, (Dr. Brian Wowk of 21st Century Medicine), made his comments in a legal setting, under oath.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Who is Leaking Alcor "Insider Information" to be Posted by Anonymous Persons on the Internet?
If Alcor cares so much about "patient confidentiality," why is an anonymous person posting details, which should be known only to Alcor insiders, on the Internet? This isn't the first time someone has, anonymously, posted what appears to be insider information, related to Alcor, on the Cold Filter forum. Would it be proper for an Alcor employee, former employee, or anyone with strong ties to Alcor, to pass this type of information to an anonymous person, so that it could be posted on the Internet? Wouldn't current, and former, employees of Alcor be bound by the same confidentiality agreements they have tried to apply to Mr. Johnson, if there are any such valid agreements?
"The comment is hardly innocuous, being that some of those "cryonicists with cameras" took pictures of a converted ambulance used to pick TW up from the airport. Not any kind of box truck, much less a U-Haul one." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1275442051/The+Results+Are+In
If Alcor cares so much about "patient confidentiality," why were there so many people at the Ted Williams case, taking pictures, to begin with? Who called them up, and told them Mr. Williams' body would be arriving at the Alcor facility? Wasn't Alcor obligated to protect Mr. Williams' privacy, at the time? Who was in charge, at Alcor, that day? Didn't that person have the decency and common sense to say, "Everybody off this property in five seconds, or I'm calling the police," before Mr. Williams arrived?
Does Alcor actually have "patients"? In other words, can a corpse qualify as a "patient"? I would also like to know if it acceptable for a company to refer to laymen as "surgeons."
Here are my previous comments regarding Mr. Williams' transportation, which seem to have prompted someone to feed what I believe Alcor might call "confidential patient information," to an anonymous person, to be posted on the Internet:
Okay...let's try a little experiment. Everyone reading this pretend you couldn't care less about cryonics, Alcor, or Larry Johnson. In fact, pretend you never heard of any of them, until you were subpoenaed to sit on the jury, at a civil trial. Now, pretend Johnson's attorneys, (having already established that Alcor has, indeed, used moving vans/box trucks to move their deceased members), reads the following statement, from his book, outloud:
"As the body was unloaded from a U-Haul truck and wheeled across the Scottsdale, Arizona, parking lot, cryonicists with cameras swarmed from Alcor's back doors, laughing, joking, and snapping souvenir pictures."
(From the Johnson/Baldyga book, "Frozen," page 193.)
Doesn't the comment about unloading the body from a U-Haul truck seem rather innocuous, compared to the rest of the sentence? Wouldn't you be wondering why Alcor didn't object to the rest of the sentence? Was the remainder of the sentence accurate? Don't many people refer to moving vans and box trucks as "U-Haul trucks," the same way we say we're going to "Xerox" something, rather than "copy" it? Maybe the statement was inaccurate, but does the first part of the sentence really appear to be malicious defamation? Doesn't the defamation claim, related to the use of the term "U-Haul truck," seem particularly frivilous, considering the fact that Alcor has used box trucks to move their clients, and considering all the dirt Johnson dished? Does anyone believe Johnson sat around, thinking, "Gee, I'll throw in the term 'U-Haul truck,' to make Alcor look ridiculous." If the statement was inaccurate, was it an intentional lie? Conversely, did Johnson's comments, regarding Alcor providing a private plane for Mr. Williams' transport from Florida to Arizona, make Alcor seem more dignified, or impressive?
The statement that got me thinking about this is from Alcor's May 24, 2010 "Memorandum in Opposition to Johnson's Motion to Dismiss":
"This is no different than the other statements of opinion in which Johnson suggest that Alcor used a U-Haul truck to deliver the body of Ted William to its facility (a false statement implying that Alcor used a rented box van to transport a legendary sports figure)...These are statements of
fact, which can be proven false, and would appear to the outside world as subjecting Alcor to ridicule."
Doesn't it look like Alcor's own attorneys have the opinion that Alcor would appear ridiculous, to the outside world, if it was known they have transported members in box vans? In culling 30-something examples, from what has been called "four hundred pages of lies," by someone testifying on Alcor's behalf, is an objection to the use of the term "U-Haul truck" amongst the best they could do? Didn't anyone at Alcor raise their hand and say, "Hey, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't indicate the use of a rented box van would make us appear ridiculous"?
Why did Alcor's attorneys used the phrase "legendary sports figure," in their complaints? Does celebrity status afford better treatment than that provided for the average Alcor member? How about when the celebrity never bothered to officially sign up, fill out Alcor's paperwork, or provide for funding, in advance? Does he deserve better treatment than Alcor members who have gone out of their way to prepare for, and provide for, their own cryo-suspensions? How many of them get whisked off, in private planes? How many of them have been transported in rented box vans?
These are the types of questions I would imagine the Johnson/Baldyga/Vanguard attorneys will be asking, in court, if the case ever makes it there.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1275314601/An+Experiment
"The comment is hardly innocuous, being that some of those "cryonicists with cameras" took pictures of a converted ambulance used to pick TW up from the airport. Not any kind of box truck, much less a U-Haul one." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1275442051/The+Results+Are+In
If Alcor cares so much about "patient confidentiality," why were there so many people at the Ted Williams case, taking pictures, to begin with? Who called them up, and told them Mr. Williams' body would be arriving at the Alcor facility? Wasn't Alcor obligated to protect Mr. Williams' privacy, at the time? Who was in charge, at Alcor, that day? Didn't that person have the decency and common sense to say, "Everybody off this property in five seconds, or I'm calling the police," before Mr. Williams arrived?
Does Alcor actually have "patients"? In other words, can a corpse qualify as a "patient"? I would also like to know if it acceptable for a company to refer to laymen as "surgeons."
Here are my previous comments regarding Mr. Williams' transportation, which seem to have prompted someone to feed what I believe Alcor might call "confidential patient information," to an anonymous person, to be posted on the Internet:
Okay...let's try a little experiment. Everyone reading this pretend you couldn't care less about cryonics, Alcor, or Larry Johnson. In fact, pretend you never heard of any of them, until you were subpoenaed to sit on the jury, at a civil trial. Now, pretend Johnson's attorneys, (having already established that Alcor has, indeed, used moving vans/box trucks to move their deceased members), reads the following statement, from his book, outloud:
"As the body was unloaded from a U-Haul truck and wheeled across the Scottsdale, Arizona, parking lot, cryonicists with cameras swarmed from Alcor's back doors, laughing, joking, and snapping souvenir pictures."
(From the Johnson/Baldyga book, "Frozen," page 193.)
Doesn't the comment about unloading the body from a U-Haul truck seem rather innocuous, compared to the rest of the sentence? Wouldn't you be wondering why Alcor didn't object to the rest of the sentence? Was the remainder of the sentence accurate? Don't many people refer to moving vans and box trucks as "U-Haul trucks," the same way we say we're going to "Xerox" something, rather than "copy" it? Maybe the statement was inaccurate, but does the first part of the sentence really appear to be malicious defamation? Doesn't the defamation claim, related to the use of the term "U-Haul truck," seem particularly frivilous, considering the fact that Alcor has used box trucks to move their clients, and considering all the dirt Johnson dished? Does anyone believe Johnson sat around, thinking, "Gee, I'll throw in the term 'U-Haul truck,' to make Alcor look ridiculous." If the statement was inaccurate, was it an intentional lie? Conversely, did Johnson's comments, regarding Alcor providing a private plane for Mr. Williams' transport from Florida to Arizona, make Alcor seem more dignified, or impressive?
The statement that got me thinking about this is from Alcor's May 24, 2010 "Memorandum in Opposition to Johnson's Motion to Dismiss":
"This is no different than the other statements of opinion in which Johnson suggest that Alcor used a U-Haul truck to deliver the body of Ted William to its facility (a false statement implying that Alcor used a rented box van to transport a legendary sports figure)...These are statements of
fact, which can be proven false, and would appear to the outside world as subjecting Alcor to ridicule."
Doesn't it look like Alcor's own attorneys have the opinion that Alcor would appear ridiculous, to the outside world, if it was known they have transported members in box vans? In culling 30-something examples, from what has been called "four hundred pages of lies," by someone testifying on Alcor's behalf, is an objection to the use of the term "U-Haul truck" amongst the best they could do? Didn't anyone at Alcor raise their hand and say, "Hey, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't indicate the use of a rented box van would make us appear ridiculous"?
Why did Alcor's attorneys used the phrase "legendary sports figure," in their complaints? Does celebrity status afford better treatment than that provided for the average Alcor member? How about when the celebrity never bothered to officially sign up, fill out Alcor's paperwork, or provide for funding, in advance? Does he deserve better treatment than Alcor members who have gone out of their way to prepare for, and provide for, their own cryo-suspensions? How many of them get whisked off, in private planes? How many of them have been transported in rented box vans?
These are the types of questions I would imagine the Johnson/Baldyga/Vanguard attorneys will be asking, in court, if the case ever makes it there.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1275314601/An+Experiment
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Evidenced-based Foolishness
From Alcor's website:
"Cryonics technology is more advanced than even most signed up cryonicists realize.
Most people in the scientific community do not realize what progress has been made and most cryonicists do not realize the protocols and technologies that have been developed in the service of making cryonics a true "evidence based technology.""
http://www.alcornews.org/weblog/2010/02/the_cryonics_technology_progre.html
I strongly disagree. I think it's much more likely the services provided by Alcor and Suspended Animation are a lot more primative and amateurish than most people who sign up ever imagine. I believe the definition of "evidence-based technology" includes competently performing proven procedures. Anyone who thinks sending laymen to botch medical procedures, (such as femoral cannulations and perfusion), fits the definition of a "true evidence based technology" is delusional. Anyone who thinks paying laymen to practice those tasks on dead pigs, a few times a year, is preferable to hiring qualified personnel, (which they could easily afford), is something a lot less flattering than "delusional."
Other than a relatively small amount of lab-based evidence that some of the solutions may be preserving brain tissue, there's not much evidence the cry-orgs are getting anything right. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence of them taking hours to perform vascular cannulations that should take minutes, (while the client remains relatively warm, slowly deteriorating); subjecting their clients to inappropriate perfusion pressures and massive air emboli; using absurd DIY equipment, when existing equipment is far superior; and other silliness. Yes, I know those photos of them, all dressed up in their scrubs, makes them "look like" they know what they are doing, but don't let the medical garb and slick photography fool you into paying $60,000 - $150,000, for some very questionable services.
"Cryonics technology is more advanced than even most signed up cryonicists realize.
Most people in the scientific community do not realize what progress has been made and most cryonicists do not realize the protocols and technologies that have been developed in the service of making cryonics a true "evidence based technology.""
http://www.alcornews.org/weblog/2010/02/the_cryonics_technology_progre.html
I strongly disagree. I think it's much more likely the services provided by Alcor and Suspended Animation are a lot more primative and amateurish than most people who sign up ever imagine. I believe the definition of "evidence-based technology" includes competently performing proven procedures. Anyone who thinks sending laymen to botch medical procedures, (such as femoral cannulations and perfusion), fits the definition of a "true evidence based technology" is delusional. Anyone who thinks paying laymen to practice those tasks on dead pigs, a few times a year, is preferable to hiring qualified personnel, (which they could easily afford), is something a lot less flattering than "delusional."
Other than a relatively small amount of lab-based evidence that some of the solutions may be preserving brain tissue, there's not much evidence the cry-orgs are getting anything right. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence of them taking hours to perform vascular cannulations that should take minutes, (while the client remains relatively warm, slowly deteriorating); subjecting their clients to inappropriate perfusion pressures and massive air emboli; using absurd DIY equipment, when existing equipment is far superior; and other silliness. Yes, I know those photos of them, all dressed up in their scrubs, makes them "look like" they know what they are doing, but don't let the medical garb and slick photography fool you into paying $60,000 - $150,000, for some very questionable services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)