X-Message-Number: 29822
From: "Melody Maxim" <>
Subject: Critical Perfusion Info From SA's Recent Case
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:13:20 -0400


FROM THE SA CASE REPORT: "Two minutes later he (the funeral director) exclaimed 
in surprise as he made an incision and found blood spurting onto him under 
pressure from the cannula that was already attached to the ATP on the arterial 
side. He was heard to ask if the ATP pump was running. The Third Team Member 
confirmed that it was."



This is critical. Anyone who is familiar with the cannulation process and 
perfusion will come to the same conclusions I have, after reading this. We know 
the femoral artery has already been cannulated, as per the SA report, (with a 
small venous cannula, in error). The next incision to be made is one into the 
femoral vein. Blood does not "spurt" from a venous incision of a "legally dead" 
patient. The SA report clearly states that the femoral artery had been 
cannulated, and that the spurting of blood was a result of "pressure from the 
cannula that was already attached to the ATP on the arterial side." The report 
also states that an SA staff member confirmed that the pump was running.


This patient was subjected to high pressures by the improper use of the 
perfusion equipment by incompetent personnel. In order to reach the femoral 
vein, that pressure had to travel through the entire circulation of the patient,
and therefore, was applied to every organ in the patient's body, including his 
brain.


This is a patient who has already suffered one stroke, prior to legal death, 
putting him at extremely high risk of additional strokes, especially if 
subjected to increased vascular pressure. People who have strokes often have 
generalized vascular disease, meaning their entire vascular system is 
compromised. How much damage did SA, through their arrogance and incompetence, 
do to CI-81's brain and other organs?


Someone I admire and respect has said to me that my observations can only 
qualify as "speculation," since I was not at the case, but I strongly disagree. 
The report CLEARLY states that the arterial line was connected to the patient, 
(improperly by use of a venous cannula), and that the spurting of blood from the
funeral director's next incision, (the next incision would be into the femoral 
vein), was a result of pressurization from the arterial line that had been 
connected to the patient. It's very easy for an experienced perfusionist to 
"read between the lines," in this part of the report.


You can find more of my comments about the SA Case Report here: 
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29822