Specific Questions for Cryonics Institute (Ben and/or Andy)

Specific Questions for Cryonics Institute (Ben and/or Andy)

Joined: January 5th, 2007, 8:15 pm

September 1st, 2009, 10:07 pm #1


Melody Maxim wrote:

> However, I KNOW Ben Best and Andy Zawacki read this forum.

I don't always read this forum, and when I do read
it I often to a great deal of "skimming". I apologize for
taking so long to get around to answering these questions,
but it was not on the top of my task list. I will be going
to the SENS conference tomorrow, so I will not be in a
position to follow-up if my answers seem unsatisfactory.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report

I disagree that many of your questions should have
been included in the report. You ask about events that
happened in New York, not in Michigan. The first thing
I did before writing the report was to have a phone
interview with Catherine Baldwin and Curtis' son Rob.
Anything that I said about what happened in New York
came from those interviews.

I was expecting a report from Suspended Animation
by now, but I feel certain that one will be released
before the end of September. SA is committed to
writing case reports, last I heard.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> I have some very specific questions for Cryonics Institute.
> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report:
>
> 1. How many incisions were made, on Mr. Henderson, (CI-95),
> and where were they located?

I only know of femoral and jugular incisions. If there
were many, I can't give you a count.

> 2. Which vessels had been incised and/or cannulated at the site
> of each skin incision?

There was a cannula in the right femoral when the
patient arrived, and CI's funeral director cannulated
the right jugular, which had an open incision ready to
be cannulated.

> 3. Did Baldwin really "(solicit) the assistance of a funeral
> director," or did she dig around in both sides of Mr. Henderson's
> groin and his neck, for a couple of hours, (or more), before a
> funeral director volunteered his assistance?

I am reluctant to discuss events that I did not witness,
and I would rather see the SA case report before commenting.

> 4. Were there really no earlier flights, or did SA miss them,
> due to their incompetence at performing the procedures, (procedures
> that are actually quite simple, for those who have had the proper
> training and a lot of supervised clinical experience)?

There were earlier flights, and I don't know why SA took so long.
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> 5. Why did SA take approximately twelve hours to perform procedures
> that should have taken a maximum of 2-3 hours?

Again, I don't know why SA took so long and
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> From the CI report: "Catherine told Jim that the cannula in the
> femoral artery extended all the way up to near the heart."
>
> 6. Did it??? (And, why does Baldwin think the arterial cannula should
> extend "all the way up to near the heart"? This isn't common practice.
> In a femoral cannulation, it's the tip of the venous cannula that
> is typically placed near the heart, not the arterial cannula. It appears
> Baldwin knows about as much about the procedures she is supposed to be
> supervising, as the rest of Platt's/Kent's "RUP's".)

No, it did not extend to the heart. This was very puzzling because
the descending aorta had been clamped, and it made no sense that
the patient could have been perfused. Andy phoned our funeral
Director later, who explained that he had not entirely clamped
the descending aorta because he thought he was making space
for the cannula.

> 7. What were the flow rates, pressures, and temperatures, throughout
> the washout procedure? (Surely SA provided CI with a perfusion record,
> but if not, why not?)

I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 8. How long was it, from the first incision to the commencement of
> perfusion? (It should have been minutes, did anyone document the length
> of time the cannulation took? If not, why not? Because they don't want
> to admit to bumbling around for a few hours?)

A long time elapsed between when SA arrived at the funeral
home and when they left the funeral home to drive the patient
to Michigan. I am waiting for the SA case report to see an
explanation for the elapsed time.

> 9. How long did the washout perfusion take? Were there problems
> with venous return?

Again, I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 10. Why does CI continue to endorse their members paying more than
> double what they pay for CI's services, for additional procedures from
> a company which appears to excell only at incompetence?

This is a rhetorical question. I disagree that SA excels only
at incompetence, which is why I want their services for myself. We
have argued this point too many times before. Although I was not
in New York, it seems that the surgery and the time of handling
this case should have been much better on the basis of all the
time it took them, but I expect that SA will do better in the future.
At least the initial cooldown was reportedly very prompt.

> 11. Do Ben and/or Andy, (mistakenly) think those "cryonics professionals"
> at SA really "know things that medical professionals don't know"? If so,
> WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS? How to over-pressurize patients? How to prolong a
> femoral cannulation procedure, (that should take minutes), for hours? How
> to make multiple incisions for a procedure a competent surgeon would
> consistently accomplish with one?

SA had a perfusionist on this case, and they planned to have a surgeon,
but the timing of Curtis' death happened between surgeons. I hope and
expect that SA has learned from this experience and that they will
ensure that a perfusionist and surgeon are on-hand in the future.

> 12. Just out of curiousity...Did Curtis Henderson sign up for, and
> pay for, SA's services?

That is private Member information and it would be inappropriate
for Andy or me to disclose it without permission.

-- Ben Best
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 2nd, 2009, 1:14 pm #2

First I want to thank Ben for responding, and I want to answer his question, regarding why I should expect him to know the answers to questions about the procedures Suspended Animation, Inc. (SA) performed, in New York. As President of Cryonics Institute (CI) I think Ben should have demanded the report in a timely fashion, (within a day, or two, AT MOST). If SA wants to produce a rambling narrative of why people who were absent weren't there, how well the team members got along, bathroom breaks, or other extraneous information, they could take a lifetime to do that, for all I care, but the facts of the case should have been reported, immediately. I guarantee that the perfusionist who was there is accustomed to charting a considerable amount of information, every 10-15 minutes, while operating a perfusion system significantly more complex than SA's, along with an assortment of peripheral equipment. The perfusion report would have been complete, at the end of the case, and would have provided a lot of information.

Ben: "I was expecting a report from Suspended Animation
by now, but I feel certain that one will be released
before the end of September. SA is committed to
writing case reports, last I heard."


THE END OF SEPTEMBER??? Are you kidding me? It is my very strong opinion, the only excuse for that would be they are having trouble "skirting the truth." I expect their report to be an exercise in creative writing and/or a mountain of excuses.

(My original questions are numbered, with ">" next to them.)

> 1. How many incisions were made, on Mr. Henderson, (CI-95),
> and where were they located?

Ben: "I only know of femoral and jugular incisions. If there
were many, I can't give you a count."


I believe there were three skin incisions, one in each side of the groin and one in the neck. This is two more than what is necessary.

> 2. Which vessels had been incised and/or cannulated at the site
> of each skin incision?

Ben: "There was a cannula in the right femoral when the
patient arrived, and CI's funeral director cannulated
the right jugular, which had an open incision ready to
be cannulated."


That doesn't quite answer my question. Did the right jugular have an "open incision," or was the open incision a skin incision over the right jugular? Were there other incisions, in vessels? If so, had they been closed? Why was there only ONE cannula in the patient?

> 3. Did Baldwin really "(solicit) the assistance of a funeral
> director," or did she dig around in both sides of Mr. Henderson's
> groin and his neck, for a couple of hours, (or more), before a
> funeral director volunteered his assistance?

Ben: "I am reluctant to discuss events that I did not witness,
and I would rather see the SA case report before commenting."


Apparently, SA is as reluctant, as you are, to discuss this.

> 4. Were there really no earlier flights, or did SA miss them,
> due to their incompetence at performing the procedures, (procedures
> that are actually quite simple, for those who have had the proper
> training and a lot of supervised clinical experience)?

Ben: "There were earlier flights, and I don't know why SA took so long.
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say."


Why didn't you include this information in your report, instead of allowing people to believe it was an issue with the airlines, rather than SA, that caused the delay?

> 5. Why did SA take approximately twelve hours to perform procedures
> that should have taken a maximum of 2-3 hours?

Ben: "Again, I don't know why SA took so long and
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say."


I think CI should demand at least the factual contents of the report, IMMEDIATELY. SA should cough up the times of incisions, the time perfusion was commenced, flow rates and pressures, temperatures, and a lot of other information they should have collected, at once. What are they doing? Waiting for people like me to ask questions, so they can write their report around what they think others might know? I have a dozen more questions about the Henderson case, and a large number of questions about SA's Alcor case, but they aren't going to get them, until after their reports are published.

> From the CI report: "Catherine told Jim that the cannula in the
> femoral artery extended all the way up to near the heart."
>
> 6. Did it??? (And, why does Baldwin think the arterial cannula should
> extend "all the way up to near the heart"? This isn't common practice.
> In a femoral cannulation, it's the tip of the venous cannula that
> is typically placed near the heart, not the arterial cannula. It appears
> Baldwin knows about as much about the procedures she is supposed to be
> supervising, as the rest of Platt's/Kent's "RUP's".)

Ben: "No, it did not extend to the heart. This was very puzzling because
the descending aorta had been clamped, and it made no sense that
the patient could have been perfused. Andy phoned our funeral
Director later, who explained that he had not entirely clamped
the descending aorta because he thought he was making space
for the cannula."


Why did you leave out that information? I found it very curious that you wrote that sentence the way you did. In fact, the second I read it, I felt I knew the cannula did not really extend "all the way up to near the heart," or you would have verified that. Did CI's funeral director attempt to palpate the cannula? I believe Baldwin's ignorance, and incompetence, are glaring, in this part of CI's report.

> 7. What were the flow rates, pressures, and temperatures, throughout
> the washout procedure? (Surely SA provided CI with a perfusion record,
> but if not, why not?)

Ben: "I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report."


If this was a heart surgery, (a vastly more complex procedure than SA's washout), the perfusion report would have been placed in the patient's chart, before the patient left the operating room, and would have included all of this information, and more. CI should have been handed the factual information, along with the patient. Again, the extraneous information could have come later, (or never), for all I, (or any other medical professional), would care.

> 8. How long was it, from the first incision to the commencement of
> perfusion? (It should have been minutes, did anyone document the length
> of time the cannulation took? If not, why not? Because they don't want
> to admit to bumbling around for a few hours?)

Ben: "A long time elapsed between when SA arrived at the funeral
home and when they left the funeral home to drive the patient
to Michigan. I am waiting for the SA case report to see an
explanation for the elapsed time."


I think you should have demanded a reporting of the facts of the case, a long time ago. These should have been delivered, to CI, along with the patient. The perfusion report should have been done, before the patient left the mortuary, and Baldwin had a 9-10 hour drive, during which she could have assembled a basic, factual report. (In addition to the perfusion report, I used to handwrite a draft of the case report, for my surgeon, while he was closing the incisions, so that he would have specific information I, (and others in the room), had documented, (specific times, etc.). After he left the room, he would use my notes, (which he would edit, or add to, and which became a permanent part of the patient's chart), to dictate his own case report. I would say that, 90% of the time, he had completed dictating his report, (of a complex heart surgery), before the patient was transported from the operating room to the CCU (Cardiac Care Unit). There is no excuse for anyone to take THREE MONTHS to document a procedure that is as simple as the one SA has been attempting to perform, (and failing to properly perform), for more than seven years, now.

> 9. How long did the washout perfusion take? Were there problems
> with venous return?

Ben: "Again, I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report."


Again, I think you should have demanded the facts of the case, immediately following the case, and I cannot believe you think they should be allowed to delay the reports for ANOTHER MONTH.

> 10. Why does CI continue to endorse their members paying more than
> double what they pay for CI's services, for additional procedures from
> a company which appears to excell only at incompetence?

Ben: "This is a rhetorical question. I disagree that SA excels only
at incompetence, which is why I want their services for myself. We
have argued this point too many times before. Although I was not
in New York, it seems that the surgery and the time of handling
this case should have been much better on the basis of all the
time it took them, but I expect that SA will do better in the future.
At least the initial cooldown was reportedly very prompt."


By "the initial cooldown," do you mean surface cooling? Sure, they placed Mr. Henderson in the ice bath, quickly. Anyone off the street could have done that, without all those "training sessions." My kids could do it. Do you know how long it would take to lower someone's core temperature, using surface cooling, even with cardiopulmonary support? How low do you think the temperature could go, using only surface cooling and CPS, and in what period of time? Are you aware that a core temperature of 32-degrees C is estimated to provide neurological protection for less than ten minutes? 28-degrees C is estimated to provide protection for only 10-19 minutes, and 18 degrees C for only 20-45 minutes. If SA reports unreasonably low core temperatures, during surface cooling, I am going to say their temp probes were most likely in contact with the ice water in the bath.

I don't think my question would be considered rhetorical by any medical professional familiar with hypothermic perfusion procedures. The SA personnel are, quite obviously, incompetent at performing the medical procedures SA is selling. I'm not even qualifying that with "I believe...," or "In my opinion..., because it is a glaringly obvious fact. If they want to, they can send a subpoena to my door, and I will show up in court with a dozen, (or more), medical experts familiar with hypothermic perfusion procedures.

Many people working in cryonics seem to be blind to the truth, regarding how simple these procedures are for people who know what they are doing, and to the affordability of competent care.

> 11. Do Ben and/or Andy, (mistakenly) think those "cryonics professionals"
> at SA really "know things that medical professionals don't know"? If so,
> WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS? How to over-pressurize patients? How to prolong a
> femoral cannulation procedure, (that should take minutes), for hours? How
> to make multiple incisions for a procedure a competent surgeon would
> consistently accomplish with one?

Ben: "SA had a perfusionist on this case, and they planned to have a surgeon,
but the timing of Curtis' death happened between surgeons. I hope and
expect that SA has learned from this experience and that they will
ensure that a perfusionist and surgeon are on-hand in the future."


With their payroll, and the price they charge for their services, SA should never be "between surgeons," that is BEYOND LAME. The fact remains that some of CI's members are signing up for a $60K procedure, and probably deriving a false sense of security in that, something that may prevent them from making alternate arrangements of their own. Do they all realize that the SA contract they sign does not even guarantee SA will show up, at all, much less that they will show up with competent personnel??? Is SA willing to contractually "ensure" that a qualified perfusionist and a surgeon capable of performing a femoral cannulation, (in minutes, and with one skin incision), will be present, for EVERY case?

I hear they showed up with one of their "surgeons," for a recent Alcor case. It is said he struggled as much, or more, than Baldwin.

> 12. Just out of curiousity...Did Curtis Henderson sign up for, and
> pay for, SA's services?

Ben: "That is private Member information and it would be inappropriate
for Andy or me to disclose it without permission."


CI and SA disclosed that CI-81 was not a fully-funded SA client. I supposed that was different, in that CI-81's name was not, initially, publicly available. Then again, CI apparently felt they had "permission" to disclose Mr. Henderson's name, and other "private" information. Why not the amount, if any, SA was paid?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 2nd, 2009, 11:44 pm #3

Melody Maxim wrote:

> However, I KNOW Ben Best and Andy Zawacki read this forum.

I don't always read this forum, and when I do read
it I often to a great deal of "skimming". I apologize for
taking so long to get around to answering these questions,
but it was not on the top of my task list. I will be going
to the SENS conference tomorrow, so I will not be in a
position to follow-up if my answers seem unsatisfactory.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report

I disagree that many of your questions should have
been included in the report. You ask about events that
happened in New York, not in Michigan. The first thing
I did before writing the report was to have a phone
interview with Catherine Baldwin and Curtis' son Rob.
Anything that I said about what happened in New York
came from those interviews.

I was expecting a report from Suspended Animation
by now, but I feel certain that one will be released
before the end of September. SA is committed to
writing case reports, last I heard.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> I have some very specific questions for Cryonics Institute.
> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report:
>
> 1. How many incisions were made, on Mr. Henderson, (CI-95),
> and where were they located?

I only know of femoral and jugular incisions. If there
were many, I can't give you a count.

> 2. Which vessels had been incised and/or cannulated at the site
> of each skin incision?

There was a cannula in the right femoral when the
patient arrived, and CI's funeral director cannulated
the right jugular, which had an open incision ready to
be cannulated.

> 3. Did Baldwin really "(solicit) the assistance of a funeral
> director," or did she dig around in both sides of Mr. Henderson's
> groin and his neck, for a couple of hours, (or more), before a
> funeral director volunteered his assistance?

I am reluctant to discuss events that I did not witness,
and I would rather see the SA case report before commenting.

> 4. Were there really no earlier flights, or did SA miss them,
> due to their incompetence at performing the procedures, (procedures
> that are actually quite simple, for those who have had the proper
> training and a lot of supervised clinical experience)?

There were earlier flights, and I don't know why SA took so long.
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> 5. Why did SA take approximately twelve hours to perform procedures
> that should have taken a maximum of 2-3 hours?

Again, I don't know why SA took so long and
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> From the CI report: "Catherine told Jim that the cannula in the
> femoral artery extended all the way up to near the heart."
>
> 6. Did it??? (And, why does Baldwin think the arterial cannula should
> extend "all the way up to near the heart"? This isn't common practice.
> In a femoral cannulation, it's the tip of the venous cannula that
> is typically placed near the heart, not the arterial cannula. It appears
> Baldwin knows about as much about the procedures she is supposed to be
> supervising, as the rest of Platt's/Kent's "RUP's".)

No, it did not extend to the heart. This was very puzzling because
the descending aorta had been clamped, and it made no sense that
the patient could have been perfused. Andy phoned our funeral
Director later, who explained that he had not entirely clamped
the descending aorta because he thought he was making space
for the cannula.

> 7. What were the flow rates, pressures, and temperatures, throughout
> the washout procedure? (Surely SA provided CI with a perfusion record,
> but if not, why not?)

I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 8. How long was it, from the first incision to the commencement of
> perfusion? (It should have been minutes, did anyone document the length
> of time the cannulation took? If not, why not? Because they don't want
> to admit to bumbling around for a few hours?)

A long time elapsed between when SA arrived at the funeral
home and when they left the funeral home to drive the patient
to Michigan. I am waiting for the SA case report to see an
explanation for the elapsed time.

> 9. How long did the washout perfusion take? Were there problems
> with venous return?

Again, I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 10. Why does CI continue to endorse their members paying more than
> double what they pay for CI's services, for additional procedures from
> a company which appears to excell only at incompetence?

This is a rhetorical question. I disagree that SA excels only
at incompetence, which is why I want their services for myself. We
have argued this point too many times before. Although I was not
in New York, it seems that the surgery and the time of handling
this case should have been much better on the basis of all the
time it took them, but I expect that SA will do better in the future.
At least the initial cooldown was reportedly very prompt.

> 11. Do Ben and/or Andy, (mistakenly) think those "cryonics professionals"
> at SA really "know things that medical professionals don't know"? If so,
> WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS? How to over-pressurize patients? How to prolong a
> femoral cannulation procedure, (that should take minutes), for hours? How
> to make multiple incisions for a procedure a competent surgeon would
> consistently accomplish with one?

SA had a perfusionist on this case, and they planned to have a surgeon,
but the timing of Curtis' death happened between surgeons. I hope and
expect that SA has learned from this experience and that they will
ensure that a perfusionist and surgeon are on-hand in the future.

> 12. Just out of curiousity...Did Curtis Henderson sign up for, and
> pay for, SA's services?

That is private Member information and it would be inappropriate
for Andy or me to disclose it without permission.

-- Ben Best
When someone has a heart attack, the paramedics aren't allowed to keep their documents from the ER, the ER isn't allowed to keep their documents from the cath lab, the cath lab isn't allowed to keep their documents from the cardiac surgeons, and the surgeons are not allowed to keep their documents from the hospital, (even though they may not be employees of the hospital). Nor are they allowed to say, "We need three months to get our story straight."

You get the idea. SA is hiding something...a lot of "somethings."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 2nd, 2009, 11:55 pm #4

Melody Maxim wrote:

> However, I KNOW Ben Best and Andy Zawacki read this forum.

I don't always read this forum, and when I do read
it I often to a great deal of "skimming". I apologize for
taking so long to get around to answering these questions,
but it was not on the top of my task list. I will be going
to the SENS conference tomorrow, so I will not be in a
position to follow-up if my answers seem unsatisfactory.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report

I disagree that many of your questions should have
been included in the report. You ask about events that
happened in New York, not in Michigan. The first thing
I did before writing the report was to have a phone
interview with Catherine Baldwin and Curtis' son Rob.
Anything that I said about what happened in New York
came from those interviews.

I was expecting a report from Suspended Animation
by now, but I feel certain that one will be released
before the end of September. SA is committed to
writing case reports, last I heard.

Melody Maxim wrote:

> I have some very specific questions for Cryonics Institute.
> These questions regard information I feel should have been
> included in the CI report:
>
> 1. How many incisions were made, on Mr. Henderson, (CI-95),
> and where were they located?

I only know of femoral and jugular incisions. If there
were many, I can't give you a count.

> 2. Which vessels had been incised and/or cannulated at the site
> of each skin incision?

There was a cannula in the right femoral when the
patient arrived, and CI's funeral director cannulated
the right jugular, which had an open incision ready to
be cannulated.

> 3. Did Baldwin really "(solicit) the assistance of a funeral
> director," or did she dig around in both sides of Mr. Henderson's
> groin and his neck, for a couple of hours, (or more), before a
> funeral director volunteered his assistance?

I am reluctant to discuss events that I did not witness,
and I would rather see the SA case report before commenting.

> 4. Were there really no earlier flights, or did SA miss them,
> due to their incompetence at performing the procedures, (procedures
> that are actually quite simple, for those who have had the proper
> training and a lot of supervised clinical experience)?

There were earlier flights, and I don't know why SA took so long.
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> 5. Why did SA take approximately twelve hours to perform procedures
> that should have taken a maximum of 2-3 hours?

Again, I don't know why SA took so long and
I am waiting to see what the SA case report will say.

> From the CI report: "Catherine told Jim that the cannula in the
> femoral artery extended all the way up to near the heart."
>
> 6. Did it??? (And, why does Baldwin think the arterial cannula should
> extend "all the way up to near the heart"? This isn't common practice.
> In a femoral cannulation, it's the tip of the venous cannula that
> is typically placed near the heart, not the arterial cannula. It appears
> Baldwin knows about as much about the procedures she is supposed to be
> supervising, as the rest of Platt's/Kent's "RUP's".)

No, it did not extend to the heart. This was very puzzling because
the descending aorta had been clamped, and it made no sense that
the patient could have been perfused. Andy phoned our funeral
Director later, who explained that he had not entirely clamped
the descending aorta because he thought he was making space
for the cannula.

> 7. What were the flow rates, pressures, and temperatures, throughout
> the washout procedure? (Surely SA provided CI with a perfusion record,
> but if not, why not?)

I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 8. How long was it, from the first incision to the commencement of
> perfusion? (It should have been minutes, did anyone document the length
> of time the cannulation took? If not, why not? Because they don't want
> to admit to bumbling around for a few hours?)

A long time elapsed between when SA arrived at the funeral
home and when they left the funeral home to drive the patient
to Michigan. I am waiting for the SA case report to see an
explanation for the elapsed time.

> 9. How long did the washout perfusion take? Were there problems
> with venous return?

Again, I was not in New York for the perfusion, and I don't know
why you think I would have these details or should have
included them in the CI case report.

> 10. Why does CI continue to endorse their members paying more than
> double what they pay for CI's services, for additional procedures from
> a company which appears to excell only at incompetence?

This is a rhetorical question. I disagree that SA excels only
at incompetence, which is why I want their services for myself. We
have argued this point too many times before. Although I was not
in New York, it seems that the surgery and the time of handling
this case should have been much better on the basis of all the
time it took them, but I expect that SA will do better in the future.
At least the initial cooldown was reportedly very prompt.

> 11. Do Ben and/or Andy, (mistakenly) think those "cryonics professionals"
> at SA really "know things that medical professionals don't know"? If so,
> WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS? How to over-pressurize patients? How to prolong a
> femoral cannulation procedure, (that should take minutes), for hours? How
> to make multiple incisions for a procedure a competent surgeon would
> consistently accomplish with one?

SA had a perfusionist on this case, and they planned to have a surgeon,
but the timing of Curtis' death happened between surgeons. I hope and
expect that SA has learned from this experience and that they will
ensure that a perfusionist and surgeon are on-hand in the future.

> 12. Just out of curiousity...Did Curtis Henderson sign up for, and
> pay for, SA's services?

That is private Member information and it would be inappropriate
for Andy or me to disclose it without permission.

-- Ben Best
...that ONE cannula...again, I ask, why was there only ONE??? Suspended Animation needs an arterial cannula AND a venous cannula, in order to recirculate and cool to near zero degrees C. If they successfully inserted the two cannulae they would have needed in order to do what they are supposed to do, why would they only leave one? It makes no sense, whatsoever, to leave one and remove the other. Think about it.

And, why was there an incision in the neck, at all?

My questions and remarks about why CI continues to endorse SA's incompetence were not meant to be "rhetorical," but THESE questions probably are.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

September 3rd, 2009, 12:14 am #5

When someone has a heart attack, the paramedics aren't allowed to keep their documents from the ER, the ER isn't allowed to keep their documents from the cath lab, the cath lab isn't allowed to keep their documents from the cardiac surgeons, and the surgeons are not allowed to keep their documents from the hospital, (even though they may not be employees of the hospital). Nor are they allowed to say, "We need three months to get our story straight."

You get the idea. SA is hiding something...a lot of "somethings."
When someone has a heart attack, the chart notes are not publicly posted on the internet so that they can be criticized by someone who doesn't even believe that cardiac surgery saves lives.
Last edited by jordansparks on September 3rd, 2009, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 3rd, 2009, 1:02 pm #6

While medical charts are not routinely published on the Internet, when people are accused of malpractice, the charts get taken to a courtroom, something that should probably be happening, in cryonics, as it seems none of the people involved are willing to monitor the quality of their own services, or interested in seeing an improvement in the quality of patient care. It's not like medical records are never subject to review and/or criticism, as they are sometimes published and/or reviewed by experts, once all the identifying information has been deleted.

I have never stated that I don't believe cryonics can save lives. I have said I don't believe most of the current care providers are capable of performing the medical procedures required for a cryopreservation, without inflicting significant additional harm.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

September 3rd, 2009, 1:52 pm #7

When someone has a heart attack, the chart notes are not publicly posted on the internet so that they can be criticized by someone who doesn't even believe that cardiac surgery saves lives.
I see you are fully committed to defend concealment, stonewalling and the theory of “What they do not know cannot hurt us”.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

September 3rd, 2009, 5:52 pm #8

When someone has a heart attack, the chart notes are not publicly posted on the internet so that they can be criticized by someone who doesn't even believe that cardiac surgery saves lives.
The long you, Alcor and Wowk promote that idea, the better chance cryonics as a whole will be sued to kingdom come. My "stakeholder" position in cryonics might sue you before others do. You're misrepresenting cryonics.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

September 3rd, 2009, 6:16 pm #9

Cryonics saves lives. Yet there seems to be a very loud group of people here who criticize cryonics while entirely missing the point that it's saving lives. If we can't even agree on the ultimate goal, the emotional protestations about quality of treatment are irrelevant to me.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2007, 2:45 pm

September 3rd, 2009, 6:37 pm #10

I see you are fully committed to defend concealment, stonewalling and the theory of “What they do not know cannot hurt us”.
There is no need to impugn the motives of those who disagree with your position. And, even though I'm addressing this to George, I'm really saying this to everyone: assuming the other side of an argument is somehow "The enemy" simply because they disagree with you is no way to win an argument. And in most cases it's probably wrong anyway. I don't think anyone in this thread really objects to openness, I think there's just a disagreement about the tone and harshness of some of the critiques that have been posted on our forum. I think it's also fair to say that we have a few occasional posters that I would not characterize as pro-cryonics. In fact, for a cryonics forum, there is a great deal of anti-cryonics sentiment to be found here. I personally don't mind, because I think it's good to hash these objections out in public. I think open engagement is a good thing. However, I can also see how many of the topics here have gone too far, so I understand why some people are concerned or even insulted by the discussions we have here. I think we should be able to discuss our differences of opinion without getting personal.
Quote
Like
Share