X-Message-Number: 6836
Date: 01 Sep 96 17:08:14 EDT
From: "Steven B. Harris" <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS:More History (pt I)

Dear Forum:

   Now that D. Cosenza has put his foot in it about Alcor's 1993
Florida AIDS case and my involvement, out comes his companion
Carlos Mondragon, claiming to have more knowledge of the history
in question.  Unfortunately, however, Mondragon's recall for
events isn't any better than Cosenza's.  All that comes through
newly in Mondragon's version is that he thought he was *running*
the show that he doesn't remember.  It's good that he doesn't
take himself seriously, as he reports.  He doesn't deserve to be
by anybody else, either.

Carlos Mondragon <>
message-ID: <508ui2$> writes:

  >>I was very sorry that Dave Cosenza mentioned the case of the
Florida man who had been signed up with Alcor and is now 
consigned to oblivion. Somehow, I'd managed not to think about
him for some time. (For those who don't know, I was Alcor's CEO
at the time, I had never "lost" anybody until then, and this
episode was quite painfull). Knowing that four years can make
holes in one's memory, I asked others for their recollections and
checked my correspondence with Steve Harris.  I wish Harris had
taken the time to do the same. <<

    Comment: Of course I did, and that is why the holes in Mr.
Mondragon's memory are so obvious to me.  To begin with, 
Mondragon was NOT the CEO of Alcor in February 1993 when these
events occurred, although he seems to be under the odd delusion
that he was.  Steve Bridge had been elected CEO late in 1992, and
took office the next January.  I dealt with Bridge and the
suspension team on this case, as my journal makes clear. 
Mondragon seems to have a bad case of the "Alexander Hague
syndrome," thinking he was in charge possibly because the
then-president of Alcor didn't happen to be at his desk at that
time, for a day or two.  But Mondragon is mistaken; this, after
all, is the age of communications.

    Second, the self-serving idea that Mondragon had never "lost"
anyone when he was CEO, is quite odd also.  For those who know
the history, a somewhat analogous case during Mondragon's tenure
as CEO had involved an elderly women (J.C.) who had been a
dedicated cryonicist until developing dementia, and then decided
to drop her Alcor contract.  Alcor, under Mondragon, went to
court about this, and lost.  I believe that Mondragon himself
then made the decision not to spend continued money on appeals--
all conveniently forgotten for the sake of debate.  I'm not
criticizing this difficult decision, only noting that the episode
seems (most charitable interpretation) not to have made much
impression on Mondragon.  This lady was lost to membership like
the Florida AIDS man was, and Leary was, and died after some
delay and hand-wringing, without getting frozen.  Given its track
record for doing so, I'm amazed in retrospect that Alcor found
nobody to blame for this episode; there's always a villain when
somebody changes their minds about wanting cryonics, don't you
know.

   >> In his reply to Dave, Harris makes an utterly useless 
ad hominem attact peppered with cute insults, then follows with a
non-denial denial of the story Dave told, and he obfuscates it in
an avalanch of mostly irrelevant verbiage.<<

   Comment: Perhaps I should have used short words for the
benefit of Mondragon.  Here's a 7th grade reader synopsis:

1) Cosenza says I convinced a man to spend his cryonics money on
useless medical care.
2) I point out the man was delirious, and didn't have any money
assigned to cryonics care.  His money was in trust to his mother,
who did not understand nor like cryonicists (more on this below).
This was the way the man wanted it.  I point out that the man
recovered after I convinced the mother to fire his doctors (and
keep him in the hospital).  I point out that the man and his
mother were grateful for my help, and had plenty of opportunity
later to sign up for cryonics in the proper way, but did not.  I
deny having anything to do with this decision.  I deny that my
intervention had anything to do with this decision.  I have
written testimony from the patient that my intervention had
nothing to do with this decision.

   There-- is that so difficult?

I wrote:
>   Be that as it may, those non-space cadets who share planet
>Earth with Yours Truly may be interested in the facts of what
>happened in the incident referred to above, since it does bring
>up what has potential to be a very difficult situation in
>cryonics. To wit: what if one does have to choose between paying
>for a suspension *now* (yours), VERSUS using the same money to
>escape an acutely deadly medical situation, perhaps betting on
>being able to recoup finances later if you survive?  And always
>remembering that a later suspension, other things being equal,
>will be a better suspension, as technology improves?

To which Mondragon replies:
  >>Better suspension technology is only a vaguely realistic 
possibility if the potential added lifespan can be measured in
years.  A few months aren't going to make any difference (unless
perhaps Harris thinks that the NIH has been secretly working on
suspended animation and that they may release their findings at
any time).<<

   Comment: Suspension technology improves continuously, and
since most of the breakthroughs these days are made at the lab I
work at, not Alcor, it's not difficult to imagine how Mondragon
feels they never come.  They won't come for him, perhaps.  As for
the NIH, they may not be working on suspension, but they are
working on most of the diseases that cause people to need
suspension, and you never know what will happen with any of them. 
This research is also relevant.  For example, the Florida Alcor
member had AIDS, and lived a year (I believe) after his brush
with death.  In a year, there is a chance that some vastly
improved treatment might be found for AIDS (in fact, this
happened LAST year--- too bad it didn't in 1993).  The hope of
such improvements is often a bad thing to bet your life on
entirely by dropping cryonics coverage (as the Florida case
shows, and as I told the man myself), but the hope of medical
progress always factors into a decision of whether to be frozen
now or later, which was my only point.

   As I said, such decisions are complicated, and it's easy to
say somebody did something wrong in retrospect.  It's not always
easy at the time to know what is right.  Example: During 
Mondragon's tenure as CEO, Alcor got multiple calls from a
depressed and suicidal member wanting advice on how to kill
himself.  Though the man had no terminal illness, Alcor 
obligingly told him that if he was going to kill himself, it
should be by voluntary starvation, so he wouldn't be autopsied. 
The man grew impatient, however, shot himself in the head, and
was autopsied.  Alcor duly flew to Texas, picked up his perfora-
ted brain, and froze it.  Question: Is it beyond the pale of
possibility that this man might have eventually gotten a better
suspension (nevermind the technology improvement) had Alcor found
a psychiatrist to commit him for treatment?  Did Alcor "save"
him, or not?  I don't know.  Alcor thinks they did, I'm sure.  

   Similarly, the Florida man with AIDS was hospitalized not only
with infection, but also on suspicion of Tylenol suicide attempt,
and if THIS man had died, as a "suicide" he might well have been
an autopsied coroner's case as well.  I suppose that this
possibility was okay with Alcor, since my journals show that I
immediately caught flak for even seeming to interfere with the
death.  When the man got out of the hospital without being
autopsied, I wasn't thanked by Alcor for helping to give this man
another chance at a non-autopsied suspension, I suspect, because
Alcor doesn't particularly worry about premature death, so long
as they get their brain, and their money, NOW.  Afterall, a
frozen person is a safe person, right?

   Actually, since Mr. Mondragon is not convinced that a few
years means anything in terms of suspension quality, I'm amazed
that he hasn't been advocating that Alcor's very elderly members
starve themselves immediately, in order to insure a suspension
while they're sure they have their wits and their cryonics money.

Harris:
>   Which is what the man with AIDS in Florida had done, as it
>turns out, having taken the trust fund that was supposed to be
>left to Alcor for his freezing, and signed it over (in relative
>secrecy) instead to his mother.  All this in strict violation of
>his agreement with Alcor, and with Alcor policy.
>
>   Thus it was that when it came to the point that this man was
>dying in the hospital of a quite treatable (but untreated)
>bacterial infection, Alcor did not know that it would not likely
>be paid if he died and they froze him, and so they sent a
>cryonics team across the country to stand by.  Since the patient
>was incoherent, a representative of Alcor asked me, as a then-
>member of Alcor, to talk (long distance)to the man's doctors and
>then to his mother.  

Mondragon:
   >>NO, this didn't happen. It was Saul Kent that asked Harris
to get involved. Kent was NOT a "representative of Alcor" and at
the time everyone knew that.<<

   Comment: Yes, this DID happen, and Saul Kent had nothing to do
with first contact.  The first time I was called about the case
was by Tanya Jones, as my diary makes clear, on Saturday, Feb 13,
1993.  Tanya was the leader of the Alcor suspension team, a
representative of Alcor.  Later I called Steve Bridge, CEO, about
the case, and was later called BY Steve about the case.  Mondra-
gon didn't call me, true enough, but then Mondragon wasn't in
charge at the time.  He only thinks he was.  At the end of this
reply I'll append an extract of a long letter about the events,
written 10 days after the fact and incorporating extracts of my
daily diary entries, just as I sent it to email to Steve Bridge
and the Alcor board of directors.  

   All this is embarrassing for Alcor, of course, but that's the
chance Mondragon and Cosenza when they bring such criticisms of
others' behavior in suspensions to bear in public.  If I was
Alcor, I'd cancel the both of them-- the negative publicity isn't
worth it (say, has Cosenza threatened to tell the police there is
cocaine in the dewers lately?)  I suppose with these latest nasty
accusations, we're getting a pre-taste here on this forum of just
how Alcor will run when Steve Bridge leaves as CEO in January. 
Al Hague syndrome again, Mondragon?  Figure you're back in charge
while Steve is out this weekend at WorldCon?  When the lame
duck's away, the mice will play-- if you'll pardon the mixed
metaphor?

Harris:
>I did this. After which I told the mother
>the truth, which was that the Florida doctors (no connection to
>Alcor) were doing nothing for her son, and that if she wanted
>her son to leave the hospital alive she would have to make
>changes in his care.  Which she then did, allowing him to
>survive the episode.  

Mondragon: NO, the patient was recovering *before* Harris 
managed to piss off the doctor and re-alienate the mother.

   Comment: He was recovering by some standards (renal function) 
before I intervened, but nobody knew it at the time, because the
lab tests hadn't been done.  Whether he would have recovered
completely without changing his doctors, or without my prodding,
is not clear. The plan, before his mother raised a fuss at my
behest, was for her to take the man home, oliguric and infected,
without an IV.  Hospice style, to die-- believe it.  So maybe he
wouldn't have survived.  Or perhaps he would have if they had
delayed discharge-- I'll admit it.  But if THAT is so, I have
difficulty knowing what this furor is about-- Alcor had no chance
to freeze him anyway at that time.  Nor was the reason that the
man ultimately didn't get frozen later, that he'd spent all his
money on medical care-- as I said, he had other reasons, some of
which I'll quote here on the forum from his letter to me, if this
debate keeps up.  (I also have copies of official debriefing
letters from the suspension team leader and the Alcor CEO, which
generally corroborate my version of events, and these can be
quoted also, if necessary.  More embarrassment for Alcor, but
what the hell...)

   If the accusation against me is not that I actually got the
man's cryonics money spent on medical care, but rather that I
only *tried* to, I can only reply that the man wouldn't have
*been* in that ugly situation to begin with if his sign-up had
been done properly.  Cryonics money for non-insured patients, in
order to be safe from medical bill estate-liens, or Medicaid
look-back, must be in an *irrevocable* trust.  Which this man
obviously did not have.  Interestingly, the previous CEO of Alcor
who had let this man sign up for cryonics without such a trust,
appears to be financial expert Carlos Mondragon.  I suppose, Mr.
Mondragon, you just thought the man wouldn't ever *want* any more
expensive medical care? Or did you think at all?  Whose 
responsibility *was* this Florida mess, anyway, Mr. Mondragon? 
  
   Finally, as for re-alienating the man's mother from Alcor,
none was necessary.  All the alienation needed happened when
the Alcor team brought the portable ice-bath into this 
"recovering" man's hospital room, scaring the Hell out of him
(being delirious) and his mother (being ignorant).  Alcor did
this screw-up all by itself, without any help from me.  And, no,
there is no evidence that the mother ever calmed down from it. 
Not in her son's letter to me, and not in what I wrote at the
time, with my understanding from having talked to the woman.
Alcor would love to think so, of course.

Harris:
>It is not my fault that when the Alcor representatives
>arrived at the hospital after a cross-country flight, the mother
>concluded that they were vultures in cahoots with the do-nothing
>doctors.  I, as an Alcor member at the time, didn't say or imply
>this.  

Mondragon:
>>A reaction of this kind is common at standby situations. We
have encountered it many times and we have learned to deal with
it with sensitivity.  Alcor's Tanya Jones had managed to soften
the mother's attitude considerably-- until the lady got that call
from Harris.<<

   Comment: This would be funny if the issues weren't so serious.
Again, as noted, the patient's mother arrived at the hospital to
find the sensitive Ms. Jones and the sensitive Alcor team all set
up in the hospital room to freeze what Mr. Mondragon has decided
was a recovering man.  Which caused her to see them as vultures,
amazingly enough.  Not even Alcor can blame me for this.  Setting
up such equipment without PRIOR very close consultation with the
family is a gross error.  Don't talk to ME about standby 
protocol; Alcor had a bunch of novices out in Florida, and simply
screwed up.  Yes, Alcor had good reason to have novices, because
its experienced suspension team leader had resigned three months
before.  But be that as it may, Alcor's Florida problems here
were not due to ME.  By attempting to lay them at my feet,
Cosenza and Mondgragon have now only succeeded in getting this
entire mess of Alcor incompetence out in public.  They'd have
been better to leave well enough alone, but Cosenza absolutely
cannot control his hateful nature, can he?  

Harris:
>Had the mother years ago had any way to read Cosenza's
>1996 post about me being "at the time in disagreement with Alcor
>people over the value of getting this man frozen versus getting
>him medical care," she would perhaps have been more justified as
>to what she did.  In reality, nothing close to such disagreement
>came until later, and that in hindsight.  At the time, Alcor was
>merely embarrassed at being thrown out of the hospital room (and
>vaguely angry at me about it), and still later even more
>embarrassed that they had almost frozen a man with no funding
>(something they've done by mistake several times).  

Mondragon:
  >> Alcor made that mistake exactly *once*. Disagreement in
"hindsight"  means the morning after. We were not "merely
embarrased", we were outraged by Harris' intervention and much
more than "vaguely angry" at him.<<

   What is this "we" stuff?  Steve Bridge went on to offer
me a paid consultantcy.  I wisely refused.  As for certain other
parties who wanted to freeze somebody come hell or high water, I
suppose they *were* angry.  So what?  My job as a physician, even
a cryonics physician, is not to help junior Alcor team members
gain field experience by freezing salvageable people.

   I stand corrected on the number of cases Alcor has frozen with
absolutely *no* funding.  It's just one.  But the number of
underfunded cases which Alcor took anyway presently includes the
first man ever frozen, the two charity cases from T.T. up North,
the lady who is A-1165, and most probably the L.A. AIDS case of
1987 and the Texas suicide (depending on what Alcor can store
for, at minimum funding).  In some of these cases (the last
three, and also the completely unfunded San Francisco man), Alcor
did not know the extent of the underfunding until after it had
frozen the patients.  Be glad, Alcor, that you didn't freeze
Leary, because he would have been another.  Please understand
that I'm not arguing that charity cases are always bad things. 
But underfunded cases you didn't plan on, are.  They indicate
incompetence always.

Harris:
>If the truth were told,
>at the time the AIDS patient under discussion was in the hospit-
>al, Alcor did not know enough to push for better medical care of
>this man, or worse.  They were simply out of the loop.

Mondragon:
  >>The truth is that at the time, I would have had no reason to
trust Harris' judgment on an AIDS patient's treatment more than
the specialists that had been treating him,

There's the Al Hague again...

  >> since Harris' experience mainly consisted of feeding lab
rats and, when he could work up the ambition, part-time jobs at
"doc-in-the-box" establishments.<<

   Plus medical school, internship, residency, a clinical 
fellowship, and a year as a clinical attending.  This at private,
university, county, and veteran's hospitals in two states. 
During all of which I saw a sick patient or two.  As for the "doc
in the box's," aka urgent care centers, they are a special kind
of test for physicians in which you sit in a place with no good
lab support and no other doctors, and try to see anyone who comes
in with anything from rash to chest pain, dyspnea to fractures,
headache to dizziness--- and treat and triage without making any
major mistakes.  If you can do this in California for a few years
without getting sued, you're doing okay. (For the record, I did
okay.)

   I realize that Mondragon hasn't the resources to tell what my 
background is, or what it means.  Fine.  I don't have
the same as regards him.  I've seen him refer to himself a
"financial analyst" at a time when the only finances he appeared
to be analyzing were those of a company which couldn't stay out
of the red except through charity.  That didn't bother me at the
time, but apparently I gave him more the benefit of the doubt
more than he gave me.  Too bad.

   [I might also mention that professional digs as seen above in
Mondragon's comment are rather common problems for medical
scientists: when we are doing mostly research (90% research, 10%
clinical, as I was doing in 1993), we get accused of not being
"real" doctors.  When we are doing clinical practice (80%
clinical, 10% research, which is what I'm doing now) we get
accused of not being real scientists. So it goes.]

Mondragon:
  >>The deja vu is real.  Silly us, we seem to think that its 
possible to do cryonics without necessily being assholes to 
everyone we encounter.<<

   Well, you haven't done a very good job demonstrating it.   


                              Steve Harris, M.D.


Appendix (next message):  Portion of a letter contemporary to the
events discussed, from me to Alcor CEO Steve Bridge and 
directors, containing journal extracts:


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6836