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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
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.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Patents in Cryonics
Recently, Steve Harris tried to impress me, (or maybe other readers of the "Cold Filter" cryonics forum), by stating he holds a "novel propofol formulation patent in several countries, with more to come." Apparently, Harris has not paid attention to my previous posts, regarding patents. If a person was to tell me they held one hundred patents, without being able to prove any of their patented items had been successfully marketed, all they would have convinced me of is that they, (or someone funding their activities), had spent a whole lot of money. Just about anybody willing to spend the money, could hold any number of "novel formulation" patents, but that wouldn't mean any of them were safe, effective, worthy of FDA-approval, or marketable. While the people funding cryonics activities may find the issuance of patents impressive, I don't. Most patents are worthless. When Harris comes back with proof his patented propofol formulation has received FDA-approval and is being marketed by a major pharmaceutical company, then I'll be impressed. Other than the inventors, (whose activities have been funded by LEF and/or Alcor), and maybe some patent attorneys, has anyone ever made a penny off of any of the patents related to the activities of cryonics organizations?
Hopefully, Harris et. al.'s laboratory work isn't as sloppy as one of their patent recent applications: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jspWO=2009042220&IA=US2008011224&DISPLAY=DESC
In this particular application, there were numerous very careless errors, which I spotted the first time I read it. For example, they were "induc(ing)hyperthermia in order to decrease mammalian temperature..." ("Inducing hyperthermia" means warming, not cooling.) I understand typos, but for a Harris' group to submit a patent application in which they consistently confused the terms for heating and cooling, is beyond sloppy. Glaringly obvious, careless mistakes, such as those, make it appear as though no one bothered to review the document, before it was submitted and published on the Internet. I wrote more about it, here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1257168041/Sloppy+Patent+Work+-+Critical+Care+Research
Hopefully, Harris et. al.'s laboratory work isn't as sloppy as one of their patent recent applications: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jspWO=2009042220&IA=US2008011224&DISPLAY=DESC
In this particular application, there were numerous very careless errors, which I spotted the first time I read it. For example, they were "induc(ing)hyperthermia in order to decrease mammalian temperature..." ("Inducing hyperthermia" means warming, not cooling.) I understand typos, but for a Harris' group to submit a patent application in which they consistently confused the terms for heating and cooling, is beyond sloppy. Glaringly obvious, careless mistakes, such as those, make it appear as though no one bothered to review the document, before it was submitted and published on the Internet. I wrote more about it, here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1257168041/Sloppy+Patent+Work+-+Critical+Care+Research
Monday, March 15, 2010
Inconsistencies from Steve Harris MD
Recently, when I was questioning the use of the drug propofol, during cryonics field procedures, Steve Harris MD responded with, "We give 200 mg. There you are. If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268000067/Propofol+dose Since Alcor and SA are the only two companies selling cryonics field procedures ("standby, stabilization and transport" services) and Steve Harris works with both of those companies, (he's the "Chief Medical Advisor" of Alcor, a "Director" of Suspended Animation, and usually the "consulting MD" for their field procedures), I thought it was safe to assume his collective "we" meant Alcor and SA.
After I located an inventory of SA's meds kits, and noted it did not contain 200mg of propofol, "in reserve," Harris responded with, "We ourselves carry backup doses of many "small volume" medications, since just an extra dose of the meds with no extra syringe or other equipment requires very little extra room in the kit, and then one has a backup if a vial is accidently broken. I thought Alcor and SAI did this. If not, I'll formally suggest it." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268372701/I+Can%27t+Believe+You+Missed+
Harris seems to be asking us to believe he wasn't responding on behalf of Alcor and SA, but I'm not buying it. Why would he be responding to my questions, regarding Alcor and SA's protocols, with information about some other entity, which doesn't even sell "standby, stabilization and transport" services? Is it not true that both Alcor and Suspended Animation keep standby kits at CCR? Are we now being asked to believe CCR keeps a different set of meds, and Harris doesn't know what is in Alcor's and SA's kits? Why would they do that, and why would a physician who is the common thread between ALL the cryonics care providers, (Harris is also on the Advisory Board of Cryonics Institute), not have standardized the meds kits many years ago? Is he not the person who designed the meds protocols for Alcor and Suspended Animation? Has he not worked with Alcor for more than 20 years? Has he not worked with Suspended Animation for the entirety of their existence, nearly eight years? I find Harris to be inconsistent, and not very credible. If he doesn't know what SA and Alcor are doing, maybe he should let them speak for themselves.
After I located an inventory of SA's meds kits, and noted it did not contain 200mg of propofol, "in reserve," Harris responded with, "We ourselves carry backup doses of many "small volume" medications, since just an extra dose of the meds with no extra syringe or other equipment requires very little extra room in the kit, and then one has a backup if a vial is accidently broken. I thought Alcor and SAI did this. If not, I'll formally suggest it." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268372701/I+Can%27t+Believe+You+Missed+
Harris seems to be asking us to believe he wasn't responding on behalf of Alcor and SA, but I'm not buying it. Why would he be responding to my questions, regarding Alcor and SA's protocols, with information about some other entity, which doesn't even sell "standby, stabilization and transport" services? Is it not true that both Alcor and Suspended Animation keep standby kits at CCR? Are we now being asked to believe CCR keeps a different set of meds, and Harris doesn't know what is in Alcor's and SA's kits? Why would they do that, and why would a physician who is the common thread between ALL the cryonics care providers, (Harris is also on the Advisory Board of Cryonics Institute), not have standardized the meds kits many years ago? Is he not the person who designed the meds protocols for Alcor and Suspended Animation? Has he not worked with Alcor for more than 20 years? Has he not worked with Suspended Animation for the entirety of their existence, nearly eight years? I find Harris to be inconsistent, and not very credible. If he doesn't know what SA and Alcor are doing, maybe he should let them speak for themselves.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor Posts Inaccurate Information, Yet Again
Steve Harris MD, (Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor), posting on the "Anti-Cult" site:
"Ms. Maxim is hardly shocked, as years ago she worked for a cryonics company where it was her job to inventory medical kits which stocked propofol for use in cryonics patients."
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,64749,page=31
Ms. Maxim is shocked to see Steve Harris MD persist in publicly describing her activities, at Suspended Animation, in spite of the fact he is well aware that many of his previous comments on her activities were blatant lies.
In the past, Steve Harris MD has gone so far as to falsely accuse me of lying about my credentials and of stealing documents from my employee folder, (including a non-disclosure agreement that never existed), at Suspended Animation. As Harris knows, the person who provided him with this false information hired an attorney and issued a public retraction and apology, after I threatened to sue all of them for libel. Harris works at Critical Care Research (CCR) in California, Suspended Animation (SA) is in Florida. Harris never set foot in the SA facility, while I was there. It was not my "job to inventory medical kits which stocked propofol." That was Kelly Kingston's job, something Harris should be well aware of, since, when he publicly blamed me for needed medical equipment that was not in the kits for a case, (five months after my resignation, no less), I made it very clear that, while I was working at SA, no one had been allowed to open the kits, (much less add anything, or remove anything), other than under the supervision of Kelly Kingston, who was responsible for the inventory of the kits. (Harris might refer to Charles Platt's apology, Paragraph V.)
Regardless, I was indeed aware that propofol was a medication in SA's standby protocol. HOWEVER, it was my understanding this was ONE dose, to be administered immediately after death had been pronounced. I was never made aware of a policy Harris recently described, (on the Cold Filter cryonics forum), which calls for administering additional propofol to a person who shows signs of life, during a cryonics procedure. Anyone who shows signs of awareness is not dead, and it is illegal to perform cryonics procedures on people who are alive. I am truly shocked that Harris would make such a statement, and not seem to realize the implications.
.
"Ms. Maxim is hardly shocked, as years ago she worked for a cryonics company where it was her job to inventory medical kits which stocked propofol for use in cryonics patients."
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,64749,page=31
Ms. Maxim is shocked to see Steve Harris MD persist in publicly describing her activities, at Suspended Animation, in spite of the fact he is well aware that many of his previous comments on her activities were blatant lies.
In the past, Steve Harris MD has gone so far as to falsely accuse me of lying about my credentials and of stealing documents from my employee folder, (including a non-disclosure agreement that never existed), at Suspended Animation. As Harris knows, the person who provided him with this false information hired an attorney and issued a public retraction and apology, after I threatened to sue all of them for libel. Harris works at Critical Care Research (CCR) in California, Suspended Animation (SA) is in Florida. Harris never set foot in the SA facility, while I was there. It was not my "job to inventory medical kits which stocked propofol." That was Kelly Kingston's job, something Harris should be well aware of, since, when he publicly blamed me for needed medical equipment that was not in the kits for a case, (five months after my resignation, no less), I made it very clear that, while I was working at SA, no one had been allowed to open the kits, (much less add anything, or remove anything), other than under the supervision of Kelly Kingston, who was responsible for the inventory of the kits. (Harris might refer to Charles Platt's apology, Paragraph V.)
Regardless, I was indeed aware that propofol was a medication in SA's standby protocol. HOWEVER, it was my understanding this was ONE dose, to be administered immediately after death had been pronounced. I was never made aware of a policy Harris recently described, (on the Cold Filter cryonics forum), which calls for administering additional propofol to a person who shows signs of life, during a cryonics procedure. Anyone who shows signs of awareness is not dead, and it is illegal to perform cryonics procedures on people who are alive. I am truly shocked that Harris would make such a statement, and not seem to realize the implications.
.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Steve Harris MD Drops Bombshell on Cold Filter Cryonics Forum
***Edited March 12, 2010, with note at the bottom.
On March 7, 2010, Steven B Harris MD, of Critical Care Research, a physician associated with both Alcor Life Extension Foundation and Suspended Animation, wrote the following, on the Cold Filter cryonics forum, in response to my questions about the drug propofol (Diprivan):
"We give 200 mg. There you are. If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268000067/Propofol+dose
In other words, they give an initial dose of 200mg propofol to people, at the time of "legal death." Then, in the event the person for whom they are providing cryonics services, (which include the application of CPR), shows signs of life, they give another 200mg dose of propofol, to render the person unconscious, so they can continue with their cryonics procedures. (The "we" in Harris' post refers to cryonics standby teams from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Suspended Animation, in Boynton Beach, Florida. Suspended Animation also provides standby services for Cryonics Institute, in Michigan.)
If they see signs of life, administer more propofol, and continue with their procedures, (which would result in death), could they be accused of murder? Since Harris' statement indicates this has been planned in advance, would it be premeditated murder? Are Baldwin, Kingston, Battiato, Sullivan, Schroeder or Ruc, (the last publicly-named employees of Suspended Animation), willing to administer that "reserve" dose of propofol to a person showing signs of life? What about Alcor paramedic, Aaron Drake? Are the licensed, certified perfusionists who have been working with Suspended Animation aware of this policy? Are they willing to be a part of it? What about Ben Best, the president of Cryonics Institute, who has been an enthusiastic advocate of Suspended Animation's services? Does he, or anyone else at Cryonics Institute, endorse this plan?
For several years, now, I have been questioning certain cryonics activities, especially those that appear to be "ticking time bombs," with the potential to bring down the entire cryonics industry. I firmly believe that, considering the amount of money being invested by Life Extension Foundation, (which provides funding for Suspended Animation, Critical Care Research and 21st Century Medicine), and Alcor, (which also receives some funding from Life Extension Foundation), cryonics activities could be carried out in a much more ethical, professional manner. I believe there are ways to provide services superior to those currently being provided, and in a manner that would not constantly draw accusations of unethical and/or illegal behaviors. Is it the goal of the organizations involved to protect the cryonics industry, by properly addressing issues, such as this one? Or, do they really think quashing people like Larry Johnson, and me, would solve all their problems? I've got news for them...for every person who complains about them, publicly, there are dozens who are taking other avenues to register their complaints.
Harris: "If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."
Maxim: Did Harris just write that, in the event a cryonics patient shows signs of life, the cryonics team is going to give them another dose of propofol? Shivering means the muscles are receiving signals from the hypothalamus and, as far as I know, legally dead people do not shiver. In fact, when people are subjected to hypothermia, they usually stop shivering even before they lose consciousness.
Note: On March 12, 2010, Steve Harris MD commented, further, on the use of propofol, in cryonics. He wrote:
"It is thus in cryonics that there is a theoretical possibility that a person in cardiac arrest who has been classed as legally dead might become aware of chest compression. We all hope this never happens, and part of the purpose of propofol is be sure that it does not."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268372701/I+Can%27t+Believe+You+Missed+This
Anyone who "becomes aware" is alive, and it is illegal to perform cryonics procedures on people who are alive. Harris has already stated that they keep 200mg of propofol in "reserve," in case the person shows signs of awareness (life). This strongly implies they fully intend to inject a living person with the drug propofol, so they can continue their cryonics procedures, in the event someone responds to their CPR efforts and regains consciousness.
The protocols need to be revised and, no, (in a response to a question in Harris' post), I am not suggesting waiting 10-15 minutes. If that is the only alternative Harris and his peers can come up with, they aren't thinking very hard. The problem with the status quo in cryonics, is they are not open to change, especially if it involves admitting they have been wrong, or changing any of the protocols and/or equipment they have designed.
On March 7, 2010, Steven B Harris MD, of Critical Care Research, a physician associated with both Alcor Life Extension Foundation and Suspended Animation, wrote the following, on the Cold Filter cryonics forum, in response to my questions about the drug propofol (Diprivan):
"We give 200 mg. There you are. If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268000067/Propofol+dose
In other words, they give an initial dose of 200mg propofol to people, at the time of "legal death." Then, in the event the person for whom they are providing cryonics services, (which include the application of CPR), shows signs of life, they give another 200mg dose of propofol, to render the person unconscious, so they can continue with their cryonics procedures. (The "we" in Harris' post refers to cryonics standby teams from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Suspended Animation, in Boynton Beach, Florida. Suspended Animation also provides standby services for Cryonics Institute, in Michigan.)
If they see signs of life, administer more propofol, and continue with their procedures, (which would result in death), could they be accused of murder? Since Harris' statement indicates this has been planned in advance, would it be premeditated murder? Are Baldwin, Kingston, Battiato, Sullivan, Schroeder or Ruc, (the last publicly-named employees of Suspended Animation), willing to administer that "reserve" dose of propofol to a person showing signs of life? What about Alcor paramedic, Aaron Drake? Are the licensed, certified perfusionists who have been working with Suspended Animation aware of this policy? Are they willing to be a part of it? What about Ben Best, the president of Cryonics Institute, who has been an enthusiastic advocate of Suspended Animation's services? Does he, or anyone else at Cryonics Institute, endorse this plan?
For several years, now, I have been questioning certain cryonics activities, especially those that appear to be "ticking time bombs," with the potential to bring down the entire cryonics industry. I firmly believe that, considering the amount of money being invested by Life Extension Foundation, (which provides funding for Suspended Animation, Critical Care Research and 21st Century Medicine), and Alcor, (which also receives some funding from Life Extension Foundation), cryonics activities could be carried out in a much more ethical, professional manner. I believe there are ways to provide services superior to those currently being provided, and in a manner that would not constantly draw accusations of unethical and/or illegal behaviors. Is it the goal of the organizations involved to protect the cryonics industry, by properly addressing issues, such as this one? Or, do they really think quashing people like Larry Johnson, and me, would solve all their problems? I've got news for them...for every person who complains about them, publicly, there are dozens who are taking other avenues to register their complaints.
Harris: "If there are any signs of awareness later, such as eyelid movement or even shivering (not a sign of awareness but certainly a sign of CNS activity), another equal dose is held in reserve."
Maxim: Did Harris just write that, in the event a cryonics patient shows signs of life, the cryonics team is going to give them another dose of propofol? Shivering means the muscles are receiving signals from the hypothalamus and, as far as I know, legally dead people do not shiver. In fact, when people are subjected to hypothermia, they usually stop shivering even before they lose consciousness.
Note: On March 12, 2010, Steve Harris MD commented, further, on the use of propofol, in cryonics. He wrote:
"It is thus in cryonics that there is a theoretical possibility that a person in cardiac arrest who has been classed as legally dead might become aware of chest compression. We all hope this never happens, and part of the purpose of propofol is be sure that it does not."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1268372701/I+Can%27t+Believe+You+Missed+This
Anyone who "becomes aware" is alive, and it is illegal to perform cryonics procedures on people who are alive. Harris has already stated that they keep 200mg of propofol in "reserve," in case the person shows signs of awareness (life). This strongly implies they fully intend to inject a living person with the drug propofol, so they can continue their cryonics procedures, in the event someone responds to their CPR efforts and regains consciousness.
The protocols need to be revised and, no, (in a response to a question in Harris' post), I am not suggesting waiting 10-15 minutes. If that is the only alternative Harris and his peers can come up with, they aren't thinking very hard. The problem with the status quo in cryonics, is they are not open to change, especially if it involves admitting they have been wrong, or changing any of the protocols and/or equipment they have designed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)