More Than Two Months, and No SA Case Report for CI-95

More Than Two Months, and No SA Case Report for CI-95

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

August 30th, 2009, 12:33 pm #1

Suspended Animation provided "standby, stabilization and transport," for Mr. Curtis Henderson, on June 25, 2009...more than two months ago. Where is their case report? Professionals in conventional medicine produce their written documentations, or dictate their case reports, (for procedures much more complex than a cryonics washout), IMMEDIATELY following the case. What is taking SA so long? Are they scared to publish the report, after all the questions I've already asked? And, what about their case report for the recent Alcor case?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

August 31st, 2009, 6:11 am #2

I know he reads this forum, though he never replies other than via his dubious mouthpiece.

Why, Mr. Kent, the ridiculous delays in publishing the SA report on CI-95? Are the Harris "warts" too rough to adequately polish?

Maybe it is due to the embarrassing material I have heard informally? That your old friend, Curtis Henderson, was subjected to amateur surgical experimentation for undue hours until someone skilled in mortician surgery was available? This, via the cutting edge of cryonics, SA Inc, which you and Mr. Faloon fund, and for which Henderson presumably made arrangements for you to be paid?

Do you have no care or feeling, for those you have worked with, be it in the past or not? Or is it only about the money?

Not feeling so cheery thinking about this,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 31st, 2009, 2:05 pm #3

Unlike FD, I'm not so sure Saul reads this forum. I tend to think he might believe himself to be "above it all," to the point of keeping his head in the sand and deluding himself into believing his money is actually accomplishing something, at SA. However, I KNOW Ben Best and Andy Zawacki read this forum. Since it seems FD has heard some of the same rumors I have, 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?

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

From the CI report: "Team-leader Catherine Baldwin had years of experience doing surgery on laboratory animals, but not humans. Catherine solicited the assistance of a funeral director to isolate the blood vessels."
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?

From the CI report: "Plans were made to ship Curtis by air to Michigan on Thursday afternoon, but the earliest available flight would not have arrived in Detroit until 10:40pm Thursday evening.
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)?

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

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".)

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?)

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?)

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

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?

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?

FD to Kent: "This, via the cutting edge of cryonics, SA Inc, which you and Mr. Faloon fund, and for which Henderson presumably made arrangements for you to be paid?"

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

I put forth that Cryonics Institute (CI), an organization that has promoted the staff members of Suspended Animation as "cryonics professionals," and has endorsed SA to the point of sending them to service clients who were not even signed up for their services, (at least one who is said to have thought SA was "a dog and pony show"), has a moral and ethical obligation to provide every detail of this case they are aware of. CI owes it to their clients to paint an accurate picture of SA, a company that is nothing more than a group of grossly-overpaid, extremely incompetent, (in regard to the medical procedures they are supposed to be providing), persons, in my opinion. I believe everyone at CI wants to do what is best for patients, so please do not "sugar-coat" your reports, or leave things out, in order to protect SA. Doing so would be a great disservice to the cryonics industry and to CI's members.

If we get answers to these questions, I might just have a dozen, or so, about SA's recent Alcor case. Maybe Kent would pay ME to write these two case reports for them. (sarcasm)

FOR SAUL KENT (Just in case FD is correct, and Saul does read this forum): SAUL, I believe all you get when you grossly overpay extremely unqualified people to perform well-established medical procedures is a bunch of incompetents hell-bent on keeping their paychecks, whether they deserve them, or not, at the price of NOT having people who can competently perform the procedures. If all I have heard is true, I believe SA inflicted a tremendous amount of harm on Mr. Henderson, CI-81, and the recent Alcor patient. What makes you think they will do any better, when YOUR time comes? You can afford the best, for SA, why don't you have it?

FOR CATHERINE BALDWIN: I really had high hopes for you. I thought you might actually turn SA around, but at this point, I feel all you have done is to have carried on SA's well-established legacy of secrecy, deception and incompetence. I think you have spent a lot of time and money on "improvements" that have accomplished virtually nothing, in the way of providing quality patient care.

FOR FD: You might consider THIS post, as probably one of the MOST "emotionally-charged" posts I have ever made. I am really, and truly, furious about the way I believe recent cryonics patients have been handled by Suspended Animation. I have been trying to convince SA, CI, Kent, Platt, and everyone else, that SA cannot competently deliver what they are selling, (slight variations of relatively simple, well-established medical procedures), for nearly three years, now. It is time for them to stop behaving so incompetently, and unethically. I don't care how (expletive deleted) "nice" they are, or how much they need their paychecks, they are not qualified to perform the procedures SA is selling. They need to stop inflicting additional harm on cryonics patients. I don't care what Platt, or anyone else has ever told them...THESE PROCEDURES ARE NOT UNIQUE...they are well-established medical procedures that professionals CAN perform, time-after-time, WITHOUT ERROR. And, for those staff members who might think the patients are "already dead," so it doesn't matter what quality of care you give them, shame on you. Bill and Saul can afford to provide better patient care to SA's clients, and it is unconscionable for them not to do so. The time has come for SA to either show us "the right stuff," or close their doors.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 31st, 2009, 7:13 pm #4

The above post was quite hostile. It's known as flame on any ordinary moderated forum. It should be treated as such and not taken seriously. Someone seems to have a very big ax to grind.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 31st, 2009, 7:53 pm #5

...with anyone, and everyone, who participates in harming patients, even if they are already "legally dead." These procedures are near and dear to my heart, and I will not tolerate what has been going on, much longer. I've been trying to get the "powers that be," at SA, to monitor themselves, for a long damn time, now. If they want to take Sparks' advice and ignore my questions, I'll fulfill FD's prophecy and take my questions elsewhere, to people SA won't be able to ignore.

(What's Sparks' problem, anyway? Is he afraid of the answers to my legitimate questions? And, why, pray tell, does someone like Platt and Sparks always show up to defend Suspended Animation, Inc.? Aren't Baldwin, Kent and the RUP's capable of defending themselves?)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2006, 9:44 pm

August 31st, 2009, 8:39 pm #6

The above post was quite hostile. It's known as flame on any ordinary moderated forum. It should be treated as such and not taken seriously. Someone seems to have a very big ax to grind.
They are all legitimate and important questions.

Quote
Like
Share

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

August 31st, 2009, 9:37 pm #7

The above post was quite hostile. It's known as flame on any ordinary moderated forum. It should be treated as such and not taken seriously. Someone seems to have a very big ax to grind.
I'm noting this post by Sparks as having no actual content.
Quote
Like
Share

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

September 1st, 2009, 12:42 am #8

Unlike FD, I'm not so sure Saul reads this forum. I tend to think he might believe himself to be "above it all," to the point of keeping his head in the sand and deluding himself into believing his money is actually accomplishing something, at SA. However, I KNOW Ben Best and Andy Zawacki read this forum. Since it seems FD has heard some of the same rumors I have, 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?

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

From the CI report: "Team-leader Catherine Baldwin had years of experience doing surgery on laboratory animals, but not humans. Catherine solicited the assistance of a funeral director to isolate the blood vessels."
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?

From the CI report: "Plans were made to ship Curtis by air to Michigan on Thursday afternoon, but the earliest available flight would not have arrived in Detroit until 10:40pm Thursday evening.
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)?

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

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".)

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?)

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?)

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

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?

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?

FD to Kent: "This, via the cutting edge of cryonics, SA Inc, which you and Mr. Faloon fund, and for which Henderson presumably made arrangements for you to be paid?"

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

I put forth that Cryonics Institute (CI), an organization that has promoted the staff members of Suspended Animation as "cryonics professionals," and has endorsed SA to the point of sending them to service clients who were not even signed up for their services, (at least one who is said to have thought SA was "a dog and pony show"), has a moral and ethical obligation to provide every detail of this case they are aware of. CI owes it to their clients to paint an accurate picture of SA, a company that is nothing more than a group of grossly-overpaid, extremely incompetent, (in regard to the medical procedures they are supposed to be providing), persons, in my opinion. I believe everyone at CI wants to do what is best for patients, so please do not "sugar-coat" your reports, or leave things out, in order to protect SA. Doing so would be a great disservice to the cryonics industry and to CI's members.

If we get answers to these questions, I might just have a dozen, or so, about SA's recent Alcor case. Maybe Kent would pay ME to write these two case reports for them. (sarcasm)

FOR SAUL KENT (Just in case FD is correct, and Saul does read this forum): SAUL, I believe all you get when you grossly overpay extremely unqualified people to perform well-established medical procedures is a bunch of incompetents hell-bent on keeping their paychecks, whether they deserve them, or not, at the price of NOT having people who can competently perform the procedures. If all I have heard is true, I believe SA inflicted a tremendous amount of harm on Mr. Henderson, CI-81, and the recent Alcor patient. What makes you think they will do any better, when YOUR time comes? You can afford the best, for SA, why don't you have it?

FOR CATHERINE BALDWIN: I really had high hopes for you. I thought you might actually turn SA around, but at this point, I feel all you have done is to have carried on SA's well-established legacy of secrecy, deception and incompetence. I think you have spent a lot of time and money on "improvements" that have accomplished virtually nothing, in the way of providing quality patient care.

FOR FD: You might consider THIS post, as probably one of the MOST "emotionally-charged" posts I have ever made. I am really, and truly, furious about the way I believe recent cryonics patients have been handled by Suspended Animation. I have been trying to convince SA, CI, Kent, Platt, and everyone else, that SA cannot competently deliver what they are selling, (slight variations of relatively simple, well-established medical procedures), for nearly three years, now. It is time for them to stop behaving so incompetently, and unethically. I don't care how (expletive deleted) "nice" they are, or how much they need their paychecks, they are not qualified to perform the procedures SA is selling. They need to stop inflicting additional harm on cryonics patients. I don't care what Platt, or anyone else has ever told them...THESE PROCEDURES ARE NOT UNIQUE...they are well-established medical procedures that professionals CAN perform, time-after-time, WITHOUT ERROR. And, for those staff members who might think the patients are "already dead," so it doesn't matter what quality of care you give them, shame on you. Bill and Saul can afford to provide better patient care to SA's clients, and it is unconscionable for them not to do so. The time has come for SA to either show us "the right stuff," or close their doors.
...when I wrote "I believe everyone at CI wants to do what is best for patients." Maybe I should have written, "I believe everyone at CI, with the possible exception of Board of Director member Jordan Sparks wants to do what is best for patients."

Maybe Sparks is afraid that, if medical professionals and/or regulatory agencies step in, a dentist in Oregon will never be allowed to "lop off heads" and store them in his garage, or a storage unit.

(***"Lopping off heads" is an expression used by someone I know, to refer to cryonics "neuro" cases.)
Quote
Like
Share