X-Message-Number: 30822
From:  (Melody Maxim)
Subject: Millions Being Spent in Cryonics
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:18:38 +0000


Recently, David Stodolsky responded to an inquiry, regarding information about 
the millions being spent in cryonics. David's response suggested my (sorely 
neglected) blog, as providing some information about the money being spent in 
cryonics. If the person who asked the original question wants to see how I 
believe a large portion of that money is being misappropriated, that would be 
the place to go. (http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/)


One way to see the actual dollar amount being donated, by Life Extension 
Foundation, is to view their form 990's. You can find them here: 
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/ Just fill in the name, and 
select the state of Florida, and you can view the reports up through 2006.


On page 18, of the 2006 PDF file, you can see that LEF made "Grants and 
Allocations" in excess of $7.3M. Of this, a mere $85K went to Alcor, $1.6+M went
to 21CM, $770K went to CCR, $1.1+M went to Suspended Animation, $30K went to 
Robert Freitas, and $1.2+M went to Stasis Foundation. (These are the 
organizations that are primarily concerned with cryonics, another $2.4+M went to
BioMarker Pharmaceuticals.)


I have no doubt that more than half of SA's $1.1M was spent on salaries and 
associated costs of the employees, and consulting fees, most of it to a handful 
of grossly underqualified, inexperienced people. The one medical professional 
who worked at SA, in 2006, (that would be me), was not really welcomed by the 
acting manager, who seemed mostly interested in building his own designs, 
without exploring existing equipment. My viewpoints regarding making use of 
existing medical procedures and equipment, with which I was familiar, were not 
appreciated, to say the least. The opinions of the paramedics who were working 
with SA, at the same time, were about as welcome as mine. People at SA, who had 
no medical experience, whatsoever, and no knowledge of existing medical 
equipment and procedures, seemed to think the paramedics should just blindly 
follow orders of the relatively clueless SA staff, because "they work for us." 
Any suggestions the paramedics made, in regard to existing equ
 ipment
 and procedures, fell on deaf ears.


Judging by the way funds are appropriated at SA, I would guess the lion's share 
of the $770K donated to CCR is for the cost of the employees, (I believe that 
would be Steve Harris, his wife, his mother-in-law, and the mother-in-law's 
significant other). The CCR website reveals nothing more than an info contact 
link, and the public has no idea what goes on there, other than a seemingly 
endless liquid ventilation project. We know "more than 100" dogs, (as of 2006),
have been subjected to painful surgery, over the course of many years, for the
sake of that project, but we have yet to see that technology brought to the 
field. I recently posted some questions, regarding the animal experiments at 
CCR, but I left out a very important one:


How do CCR's benefactors (Faloon/Kent/LEF), think CCR's liquid ventilation dog 
experiments compare to studies like this one, conducted by 56 physicians at 
medical centers all around the world, and involving 311 human patients? 
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/173/8/882  In the "Discussion" 
section you will see:


"The most important findings of this study are as follows: (1) PLV at both low 
and high doses did not improve outcome compared with CMV, (2) a greater number 
of serious adverse reactions were observed with PLV than with conventional 
ventilation..."

(PLV = Partial Liquid Ventilation, and CMV = Conventional Mechanical 
Ventilation)

Here is the quote from the January 2006 issue of LEF's magazine:

"Current liquid ventilation lavage research at CCR is aimed at eliminating all 
lung damage from dogs that undergo rapid cooling, and redesigning the components
of the system into a portable unit capable of being operated by paramedics in 
an ambulance." http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_cover_lef_02.htm


CCR is hardly likely to eliminate ALL lung damage associated with liquid 
ventilation, when greater minds, with greater resources, have failed, over the 
course of many decades of medical research. In my mind, for Kent and Faloon to 
continue to believe people like Harris and Platt can achieve this goal is simply
naive, (a word I use, frequently, when discussing certain people involved in 
cryonics). And, for them to keep funding people who can't accomplish the simple 
goal of making cold lung lavage portable, in more than eight years' time, seems 
BEYOND naive. (Actually, I believe Harris' first efforts in liquid ventilation, 
were the projects he did with Mike Darwin, twelve years ago.) Forget about 
"eliminating all lung damage," and focus on bringing this technology to the 
field, in order to facilitate the rapid initiation of hypothermia. (And, quit 
torturing dogs, without good reason.)


When are the people funding cryonics "research" going to wake up and exercise 
some common sense? It seems ridiculous to keep funding a research project that 
pales in comparison to others. It also seems foolish to pay people like Platt 
and Harris to prove they can cool faster than they could, in 2000, without any 
evidence doing so would be of benefit. (I've repeatedly asked for evidence of 
some rationale for their recent dog experiments, but there has yet to be a 
response.) The same can certainly be said for funding the design and fabrication
of "unique" equipment when proven medical equipment can be applied. It's time 
to stop doing the "we're so weird and wonderfully unique, we can't be 
constrained by existing conventional medical technology" dance, and start 
building on that which already exists. The beauty of cryonics is that IT IS an 
extension of existing medical technology. It would behoove the powers that be to
concentrate on projecting a respectable, and responsible, im
 age.


David Stodolsky also posted a response to someone's inquiry, regarding funding 
designed to get physicians interested in cryonics. I agree with David this would
be futile, but I think there is an obvious answer. If people in cryonics want 
to earn the respect, and interest, of medical professionals, they need to quit 
behaving so irresponsibly, and quit running off the few medical professionals, 
(such as myself), who DO become interested. No doubt I might have played a role 
in convincing some of my peers that cryonics is a logical extension of 
hypothermic procedures that are already successfully performed, (such as those 
for repairs of the ascending aorta), but medical professionals don't want to 
work in an environment where it is a constant battle to convince people, who 
don't know anything about existing medical procedures and equipment, to even 
consider what already exists. Throw in the "high school clique" atmosphere, with
people conspiring together to get others fired, or t
 o tend

er their resignations, and a manager pulling childish stunts like writing emails
from the email addresses of his employees, and you have a situation most 
medical professionals are unlikely to tolerate. People in cryonics will say 
"It's the money," but that's not the case, at the LEF-funded facilities, where 
the pastures are quite green, in comparison to salaries paid, in conventional 
medicine, to paramedics, EMT's, critical care nurses, physician assistants and 
perfusionists.

Melody Maxim

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30822