Alcor Membership Dues (Passive Resistance)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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..."

No Trust in Cryonics Trusts

Cryonicists are often encouraged to leave bequests and/or trusts to cryonics organizations. Given the questionable reputations of many influential persons in cryonics, and all the scandals revolving around cryonics organizations, how can anyone even consider this?

Judging by, what I consider to be a disproportionate amount of incompetence and corruption, in cryonics, I would not be surprised if money placed in any such trusts were to disappear, at some point in time, (and, perhaps, with future generations unaware anything has gone missing).

To anyone considering leaving money to cryonics research, I suggest hiring your own attorney and establishing your own trust, appointing a trustee you can rely on.

Sentence Structure (Unfinished Business from Recent Cold Filter Discussions)

If A, publicly, says to B: "Didn't you do X, when you told us Y happened?" A is implying B previously stated Y occurred.

When Platt called Alcor and asked people to look in Johnson's file for an NDA, (as he claims, in legal documents, to have done), he's implying an NDA actually existed, (something highly unlikely). (See below.)

When Platt called Suspended Animation and asked someone to look in my employee file for an NDA, (as he claims to have done), he was implying there had been an NDA in my file, when no such document ever existed.

When Harris published the false statement that my SA employee file was kept in my office, (it wasn't), and my (non-existent) NDA disappeared along with me, when I resigned, it was clear where he was getting his false information, since Platt who was working with Harris at the time had worked with me, at SA, and made the very same (false) accusation, against Larry Johnson.

When Platt publicly responds to something I wrote with, "Didn't you express contrition, when you told us that your therapist suggested it would be a good idea to let go of your anger?" he is being dishonest, yet again. I have never been advised by a therapist to "let go of (my) anger," and I certainly never made any such statement.

When I complained about Platt's distortion of the truth, he defended it as a question, and suggested a proper answer from me should have been a simple "no." My answer is that it was not a question, but an exercise in sophistry, a technique I believe Platt uses, on a regular basis.

The lessons in this are:

Sometimes people who have a (well-known) habit of lying spew forth their garbage in the form of questions, and...

Beware of questions from a cryonicist, well-known for producing fiction."

From Johnson's attorneys, in the New York court documents (Document #12, dated Nov. 2, 2009, case # 113938/2009):

"Although Alcor submits a sworn statement from Charles Platt, an independent contractor who once worked for Alcor, Platts affidavit is carefully parsed and never actually states that Larry Johnson signed any nondisclosure agreement...Instead, Platt swears only that he recalls several applicants (with no mention of Larry Johnson) visiting the facility in the last two weeks of December 2002, and that each of those people signed the agreement...Given Mr. Platts specific recollection of individual applicants executing the agreements in December 2002 prior to Mr. Johnsons visit and his careful refusal to swear that Larry Johnson actually signed one in January 2003...Yet once again, a careful reading of Platts affidavit which is apparently the only support for this outrageous statement does not state the Mr. Johnson stole anything. Instead, Platts affidavit simply recounts the fact that after Mr. Johnson left Alcor, Platt had an assistant look to see if there was an executed non-disclosure agreement, and no such agreement was found." http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain

(Note: The existence of NDA's is basically irrelevant, since NDA's typically do not protect against "whistle-blowing." I believe the deceptive suggestions that Mr. Johnson and I stole forms from our employee folders were simply lies intended to discredit our criticisms of the activities of Alcor and Suspended Animation.)

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.

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.)