X-Message-Number: 2335
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Mike Darwin
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 93 13:10:18 PDT
From: Carlos Mondragon
To: Cryonet
Re: Mike Federowicz' response to message #2323
When it comes to bio-medical aspects of cryonic suspensions, I seldom
offer opinions, because they just wouldn't be worth much. Instead, it has
been my practice to defer to those who have developed some store of
knowledge, if not expertise, in relevant areas. Choosing what or whom to
believe and trust on matters that one is not well versed in is, however,
not so intimidating a task. All it takes is enough intelligence to ask
questions and get answers that give one a sense of the issue in discussion,
and then have enough common sense to combine that information with one's
knowledge of the characters involved. This is the nature of good judgment
and intuition.
I've known Mike Federowicz for 15 years and I've been in a position
to observe him closely for the last 10 years. I've known and worked with
Tanya Jones for over two years. I like, respect, and admire Tanya. I
have the opposite feelings for Mike.
This is important: MY PERSONAL FEELINGS FOR EITHER OF THESE PEOPLE
WOULD NEVER STAND IN THE WAY OF MY MAKING THE BEST POSSIBLE CHOICE TO
FURTHER MY OWN SURVIVAL. I would never damage my chances for life or
endanger the lives of those I care about merely to avoid the distaste of
having to deal with a cretin such as Mike Federowicz (the fact that I
worked with him as long as I did is proof of that). Nor would I make such
sacrifices in order to spare Tanya's feelings.
As usual, Mike's writing is persuasive. It's what he does best. The
first time I went on a standby with Mike (in 1987) his command of the
medical jargon was impressive enough to distract an E. R. doc long enough
for us to get his attention and successfully bribe him into cooperation.
These talents alone made Mike invaluable in my eyes for years afterward.
It isn't possible (short of writing a book) to give all reasons why
those of us who have known Mike for long don't even believe him when he
says "hello". Therefore it is very frustrating to look at one of his
longer tirades and come to the realization that for every single phrase
lie, a page of refutation is needed. The bits of truth that he winds into
his deceptions make the job even harder. Such a talent for mendacity is
both awesome and mysitifying. The best explanation for it came from Jerry
Leaf: "Mike lies to everyone, but mostly Mike lies to himself."
Now that I've said all that, nobody can imply that they know more
about my biases (and the reasons for them) than you do, dear reader. I'll
leave the truly technical issues to other, more capable hands. Here I've
only extracted some of Mike's most egregious bullshit. See if my
"biases" can explain away all I say.
> a) Despite the presence of clear agonal signs the team leader (Tanya)
>and other skilled personnel were not summoned back to the hospital. This
>reportedly occurred because personnel left attending the patient were not
>competent to determine that skin color changes in the extremities
>(cyanosis and mottling) were an agonal sign. Further, according to a
>principal present at the scene, when Tanya left, there was no clear
>delegation of responsibility. This resulted in a very poorly organized
After twenty-odd suspensions, I *know* that it is flat out impossible to
predict cardiac arrest with the kind of accuracy Mike implies is possible,
even for the physicians who have been treating the patient. Last summer,
we had three suspensions. At the first, Mike left a patient who had
already had two close calls with no team member at all! Instead, the six
team members on standby (including me) were sent to motels for a good
night's sleep. The patient died in his sleep and wasn't noticed for half
an hour. I'll give Mike credit for this: he did agonize over this
blunder. The sincerity of his "agonizing" is evident by the longevity of
the humility it produced. As for delegating authority, this is something
that Tanya will undoubtedly learn to do -- and something that Mike NEVER
once did!
>response to cardiac arrest. Further, despite a prior positive California
>court ruling, a decision was made to accede to the hospital's unreasonable
>demand that respiratory and circulatory support be withheld from the
>patient until he was off hospital premises. The net result was that this
>patient experienced a potentially avoidable period of 15 to 20 minutes of
>ischemia at near normothermia.
The decision to accede to the hospital's policy was not Tanya's. As was
the case when Mike was team leader and I was CEO, that kind of call is
made by the president. Steve Bridge called me for advice, and I suggested
that he have Chris Ashworth (who now resides in the area of the subject
suspension) call the hospital's attorneys and authoritatively explain our
patient's rights. I also suggested that since much of the hospital's
concern may have been for the sensibilities of other patients, that Steve
offer to pay the difference for a private room. After the suspension,
Steve told me that he had decided that he would rather not offend this
particular institution since we might have patients here again. I too am
unhappy that that decision was made, but Mike's implication that Tanya was
responsible is an intentional misrepresentation -- he knows better.
> b) No samples were taken during initial cardiopulmonary support.
This sentence implies that sample taking during CPS is routine and/or
expected. This has never been the case. Again, Mike lies.
>There was very little sample taking during MALSS support (apparently only
>one sample at the beginning and one at the end). This makes it difficult
>to assess the quality of this support and further, to assess when
>hypochlorite contamination occurred and to what extent.
I have watched Mike struggle to even get a patient *on* MALSS support.
Continuous sample taking has only been achieved under the most ideal of
circumstances. These lines are calculated to discredit by falsely giving
the impression that standards were being violated.
> c) According to one observer present, a cannula and line were
>improperly anchored in the operating field and were pulled out of the
>patient during cryoprotective perfusion. The photo which appears on the
>bottom of page 19 of CRYONICS shows what appear to be cannulae in place
>without the conductive tubing anchored to the tubing holder. This is a
>violation of one of the cardinal rules of cardiopulmonary bypass. This
>incident was not mentioned in the case report: it is thus impossible to
>assess whether it was an arterial or venous cannula and whether or not (if
>it was the aortic root cannula) appropriate steps were taken to insure
>that air was not perfused upon reinstituting circulation.
Well, none of Mike's magazine write-ups ever contained that kind of
detail. If what Mike fears is "impossible to assess" then why is the
implication being made? This sort of subtle manipulation of sub-concious
opinion by deception is the trademark darwinian ploy and it does get
tiresome, but unfortunately we're not through yet.
> 4) Cardiotomy suction was not set-up initially and it was not
>discovered that the patient was losing large volumes of perfusate through
>the chest wound until the recirculating perfusate volume was very low.
>Recently on Cryonet, Tim Freeman asked if it was possibly the bleach that
>caused the high terminal glycerol concentration. The answer is that it
>was not the bleach, but the loss of a large fraction of circulating volume
>to the table top, which in turn increased the steepness and terminal
>concentration of the glycerol introduction ramp. This also was not
>documented in Tanya's article.
The loss of circulating volume "to the table top" has been a frequent
occurance, how often can you remember Mike having "documented" it in
his magazine articles? The other false implication is that terminal
concentration achieved for the first time with this patient was bad.
> d) A concentration of hypochlorite which is corrosive to skin and
>metal was added to the water bath bathing the patient. This resulted in
>leakage of wall water into the perfusate and denaturation of the
>hemoglobin of the patient's circulating red cells strongly suggesting
>exposure of the patient to toxic concentrations of hypochlorite. Even
>after this incident occured no one bothered to read the product's
>instructions before implemenmting a policy change. This indicates a lack
>of thoroughness in dealing with the problem; both in investigating it and
>in preventing its recurrence.
It so happens that the mistake of adding undiluted hypoclorite to the bath
happened at the last suspension of an AIDS patient when Mike was there!
Only the fact that the stuff was put in at the end opposite the pump
prevented the same corrosion of hardware. Somehow, I don't think this
mistake is likely to be repeated *anywhere*. Reading the instructions for
this product produce little more enlightenment than "close cover before
striking". If you burn yourself, it doesn't take the Feynman Commission
to tell you how not to do it again.
> I am insulted that Tanya equates this sorry performance with my own
>work in caring for Alcor patients.
Tanya did not equate her exemplary performance with Mike's work at all.
He doesn't deserve that kind of flattery. Mike's idea of caring for
patients was to hiss and scream at everyone in sight, while exploiting
every opportunity for self-agrandizement. It was tolerable while others
developed the self-assurance to work independently.
> ...... The only way to evaluate the severity of this injury with
>confidence is to have recourse to the animal lab.
This time Mike's fictional standard is not only unheard of, but
economically impossible. It will be quite interesting to see if Mike uses
an animal model to evaluate every "failure mode" (his favorite term for
his own screw-ups) that befalls his future hapless patients.
> As to Hugh's assessment that no harm was likely done: the short
>answer is, who knows? Many, many variables are present in this case.
>They need to be systematically evaluated by an outside group. Why? See
>point #4 below.
If the short answer really is "who knows?", then the obvious purpose of
Mike's hatchet job is only to fraudulently discredit Tanya and Alcor.
> 4) Tanya states that "Hugh discarded the idea of using an external
>investigator, like Mike suggests. His reasons included: that independent
>investigations are usually initiated to seek out manufacturing or design
>deficiencies; and that corrosion by a powerful disinfectant falls outside
>the standard arena for external examination."
The other reason is that Mike's suggestion may sound great on paper, but
just who is going to pay for it? If you want your life insurance premiums
to go the way of your health insurance costs, this is the road to take.
But yes, once again Mike is demanding that we hold ourselves to a policy
which neither he, or for that matter Jerry, ever followed. I can't count
the number of times that equipment has failed during a suspension or
during animal work. Not once was anything ever sent out to experts for
dissection -- unless Mike was paying for this out of his own pocket, since
I signed the checks.
> b) And more to the point, even if they *were* to be objective they
>lack the necessary credibility since they are *involved*. Brenda Peters
>has posted a piece which all but accuses me of engaging in mud slinging
>and irresponsible hysteria in my letter to the editor regarding this
>incident. I do not believe that that is the case, and further, I believe
>that the emotions I have expressed have been both reserved and
>appropriate. However, the point here is simple: investigation by a more
>objective third party would squelch such criticism from me, or at least
>eliminate its credibility -- if such is justified. That is precisely the
>point!
What then does Mike's involvement say about anything he ever reported?
Brenda's posting was much too kind to Mike, but her obvious and worthy aim
was to compliment Tanya on her serene response. My own patience for his
endless and malignant manipulations is long gone. Mike says that he's
been "appropriate". That may be true, but first we have to ask
"appropriate to what ends?" The days when Mike's ranting and raving could
stir Alcor into squandering precious time and resources have been over for
some time. Forget it Mike, go find yourself another set of co-dependents.
> This is the kind of unfortunate distortion of the truth which I have
>found unacceptable in dealing with Tanya in the past and it is the primary
>reason why I will not work with her and do not trust her to deliver good
>care to cryonics patients.
Coming from one who so many of us know to be a compulsive and pathological
liar, this could be taken as high regard, if it weren't directed at the
one person who has done more than anyone else to clean up the mess left by
her predecessor. It will take years for Tanya to accumulate the experience
we would like her to have, and maybe by then we will have the economies of
scale to afford *real* professionals. She hasn't counted on that.
Instead, she has written protocols for everything she does. More than
Mike ever dared to do. She doesn't waste her time sniping at people in
the magazine or mopping the floor so that she can whine that no one else
will do it. She does what she's paid to do: maintains the best suspension
capability in existence. I wouldn't write down the outrage I feel at the
sentence above, even on this net.
Mike goes on to viciously attack Hugh Hixon. I will only point out
that Hugh's dedication and value speak for themselves. Hugh has never
flaked-out on his responsibilities to Alcor as Mike frequently did. And
when Mike berates Tanya for failing to using her position to correct
Hugh's shortcomings, he fails explain why he expects her to do in a year
what he could not accomplish in ten years. When Mike left Alcor, he was
four years behind in writing the techncal suspension case histories that
he now refers to (I suppose he'll say it was my fault for not taking away
his mop).
For endless paragraphs, Mike tries to convince us that recrimination
and vituperation are SOP in medical settings. We are asked to believe
that medical professionals go into hysterics an scream at underlings in
order to validate their stations. Of course this isn't true, but even if
it were, it wouldn't be a custom that cryonics should imitate.
Finally Mike says:
> If that is the level of care with which everyone else is satisfied, I
>can live with that. And if Tanya's and Hugh's standard of performance in
>this matter is considered acceptable, indeed even praiseworthy to those
>who are using their services, that's fine too. But I do not consider it
>acceptable for myself, my loved ones, or for the profession of cryonics as
>a whole.
Based on *performance*, I know who I can trust and I've made my
choice. Fortunately, Mike doesn't speak for the cryonics profession.
Unfortunately for him, no sane and intelligent person will ever retain
darwinian-cult-groupie status long enough to get the experience they'll
need so that Mike can trust them.
Tanya has brought more organization to suspension readiness than
Alcor ever had before. The lack of indexing skill which Mike demonstrated
in his rant is barely indicative of his inability to organize his
thoughts, let alone his work. Tanya does both extremely well. It takes
several dedicated and motivated people to carry out a suspension. Tanya
has shown that she can manage this team and keep her cool under pressure.
I wish it were possible for every "consumer" of cryonic services to see
the difference. People could then decide what they would want for
themselves: a nightmarish darwinian circus, or the efficiency of an Alcor
suspension. Tanya's rational and methodical approach is much more apt to
produce fewer mistakes and in the long run a better result.
Re. The related message #2333 from Paul Wakefer
In reference to Jerry's books, Paul wrote:
>...removed along with the rest of Cryovita's property not purchased by
>Alcor, when Cryovita was forced, because of an attempted theft of
>Cryovita's corporate assets, and total hostility and non-cooperation
>on the part of Alcor's CEO (Carlos Mondragon), to vacate its rightful
>premises in the Alcor building.
I see that in addition to being a supercilious pompous ass, Paul is now
aspiring to emulate Federowicz in the grandeur of the LIES he tells. (If
I tried to steal something, Paul, then you should call a cop, because if
slander were a criminal offense, I would do just that.)
Regards,
Carlos
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2335