X-Message-Number: 2549
Subject: CRYONICS Case Study
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 00:36:25 PST

To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
January 13, 1994

In Reply to:    Message: #2540 - Re: Cryopreservation Protocol for 
                                      BioPreservation Clients
                From: "Micheal B. O'Neal" <>
                Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 11:55:05 -0600

>I would like to thank Mike Darwin for making the BPI suspension 
>protocol available to the net.  The document appears very thorough, 
>which I appreciate -- even if I don't have the background to follow 
>all of the details. 


>For example, Mike reports that death occurred at 17:47 on June 9th and 
>cooling to -77*C was completed at 16:00 on June 11th.  Did the process 
>really take two days? or is that a typo that should read June 10th?  


>A second matter that concerned me to some degree was the "case history"
>approach to presenting the suspension protocol.  Especially since Mike 
>stated that "The actual case history has been modified ... to bring it 
>into line with the advances in technique now employed by BPI."  While 
>it is quite reassuring to see the level of technical competence and 
>detailed collection of data that is expected to take place in BPI 
>suspensions, and certainly, using a case history allowed Mike to do 
>this; it is difficult or impossible to tell which aspects of the account 
>are fictionalized and which actually took place.  For example, is all of 
>the patient data "real", or are these simply illustrative of the type of 
>results BPI expects?  It could be that the changes Mike made to the 
>patient history were very minor, but even the suggestion that data may 
>have been modified in a quasi-scientific document makes me very nervous.

>Perhaps Mike could see fit to modify the document so that it first 
>presents the BPI suspension protocol without reference to any particular 
>patient.  The protocol could then be followed by a "composite / 
>fictionalized" case history which would illustrate the type of expected
>results.  This case history could be replaced with an actual case 
>history as soon as one becomes available.

>Again, thanks to Mike Darwin for releasing the BPI suspension protocol to 
>CryoNet / sci.cryonics.

>Mike O'Neal

>From Steve Bridge:


     A lot of Mike O'Neal's confusion stems from a lot of confusion 
between Mike Darwin, Paul Wakfer, and I, and from the general situation in 
cryonics during the past year.  Some particular facts need to be made 
clear here.

     The bulk of the Biopreservation suspension protocol was taken from a 
case report of an *Alcor suspension from 1990*.  Jerry Leaf was the head 
of the Suspension Team at the time, and Mike D. was generally in charge of 
standby, training, and many other aspects of suspensions.  Jerry and Mike 
were both on the scene for standby and transport in this case, along with 
several other team members.  

     After Mike's departure from Alcor in late 1992, Alcor continued to 
pay him to go back and finish the technical reports on suspensions he 
participated in, especially those for which he was a contractor.  Mike had 
completed (and was paid for) this particular case report last summer.  
Subsequently, he decided to use this report as the model for a sample case 
report to show what he would do for Biopreservation suspensions.   In 
doing so, he removed most of the medical case history and other personal 
material, although perhaps not as much of it as he should have.  He told 
me that he also made changes to some technical and equipment details to 
reflect what he plans to do on cryosuspensions.  Some of the oddities that 
Micheal O'Neal points out are leftovers from M. Darwin's cut and patch 

     As Alcor President, I decided that, under the terms of the agreement 
between Cryovita and Alcor concerning joint use of data and information 
from the suspensions they cooperated on, it was legitimate for Mike Darwin 
to post this report on CryoNet as information for CryoNet readers.  

     There IS the matter of whether it is legitimate for Mike to use this 
material as *promotion* for Biopreservations's business: after further 
thought, it seems to me that more change really should be made to the text 
as Michael O'Neal suggests, before parts of an Alcor report could be used 
for other than scientific or educational uses.  Mike D. and I should have 
discussed this a bit further, perhaps, before the document as it stands 
was released.  I hope Mike D. will go ahead and make these changes.

     It is also important for readers to note that *Alcor itself* is using 
essentially the same general protocol as in the 1990 case study, with some 
of its own changes and improvements since then.  Mike did not take all 
knowledge of cryonic suspension with him when he left Alcor.  He *has* 
beaten us to the punch on this issue by using something he was working on 
anyway, and it *is* useful for Cryonet readers.  It will take quite a bit 
longer for Alcor to write a similarly revised "sample case study" to show 
our current techniques; but I hope we will be able to do so in the next 
few months.

     Steve Bridge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2549