X-Message-Number: 32635
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:15:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <>
Subject: My Remarks Regarding the Johnson Book


Recently, Charles Platt remarked on my Amazon.com review of Larry Johnson's 
book. I read Mr. Platt's comments, while they were in the Cryonet queue, a few 
days ago. Later, when I went back to comment on Mr. Platt's remarks, I saw he 
had edited them. I copied and pasted the edited post into an email draft, 
intending to respond, later. The following morning, when the Cryonet posts 
arrived in my email, I saw Mr. Platt had edited his post again, removing his 
comments about me, altogether. I'm sure I wasn't the only person to read the 
Cryonet queue, that day, so I would like to set the record straight, regarding 
my comments on Amazon.com.


After reading "Frozen," I wrote an Amazon review in which I stated I believed 
"every word" of the book to be true. Soon afterward, (thanks to an observation 
made by Mark Plus), I realized my comments might be interpreted to include the 
secondhand stories, in Mr. Johnson's book, when that was not my intention. A 
more accurate statement would have been: "I tend to believe Larry Johnson's 
firsthand accounts of his experiences while working in cryonics, and I believe 
his repetition of secondhand stories to be a fairly accurate reflection of 
stories, which were told to him by some of his co-workers, at Alcor, (although 
the reliability of at least one of those sources was questionable, at best)." 
Here's a scenario I described, on Cold Filter:

You have two people who read the same book... 


"Person A" believes most of the author's firsthand accounts of events, described
in the book, to be true, because she had similar experiences, while working 
with some of the same people as the author. "Person A" also believes the 
author's repetition of secondhand stories to be a fairly accurate reflection of 
stories, which were told to him, because "Person A" heard some of the same 
stories, from other people working in cryonics, prior to the book being 
published, and without knowing the author, (in fact, while thinking the author 
was deceased). 


"Person B," who frequently works with organizations and persons criticized in 
the book, believes much of the information in the book to be false. 


Other than the obvious difference of opinion, aren't Person A's comment that she
"believes every word" of the book, and Person B's comment that he thinks the 
book is "400 pages of lies", similar, in that both comments are rhetorical 
exaggerations? In the same arena, wouldn't the nature of those two comments be 
comparable? What if one of the comments was written in an informal book review 
and corrected, soon after, but the other was spoken, under oath, in a legal 
setting?


I am "Person A," and Dr. Brian Wowk of 21st Century Medicine is "Person B." As 
the moderator on the Cold Filter forum wrote, about my (not so) hypothetical 
scenario: "As I understand it, she's saying that her statement about believing 
every word in LJ's book to be true is just as unsubstantiated as a statement 
about believing every word in LJ's book is a lie. The two statements are equally
biased, but from opposing perspectives. She's saying that both views lack an 
objective standard and it is therefore inconsistent to critique one without 
acknowledging that similarity in the other."


Would Mr. Platt like to acknowledge that Dr. Wowk's description of the book as 
"400 pages of lies" was as every bit as biased as my "every word" comment, or 
would Mr. Platt, and others, prefer to keep repeating my (promptly-edited) 
comment, (presumably, in the hopes of discrediting me)? I think everyone 
familiar with the book knows Dr. Wowk's comment could not possibly be accurate. 
For example, Larry Johnson wrote about wearing a wire and taping conversations 
he had with Alcor staff members, and even Alcor would have to admit that was not
a lie. Mr. Johnson wrote that his superiors, at Alcor, responded to his 
expressed concerns with certain OSHA violations, by worrying about the National 
Enquirer catching Alcor committing such violations, and by asking Mr. Johnson to
delete computer files and shred documents, related to those concerns. There are
audiotapes, on frozenbook.com, which seem to verify Johnson's description of 
that situation. On the same site, there are other recordings, which seem to 
validate a number of other events and conversations that were described in Mr. 
Johnson's book. http://frozenbook.com/audio.php


In one of Mr. Platt's edited posts, he wrote: "According to an Alcor press 
release, Johnson remains a defendant in a law suit for defamation and has also 
been found in contempt of court. A warrant was issued for his arrest." First of 
all, being named a defendant in a lawsuit for defamation, does not come with a 
presumption of guilt, (at least not in the eyes of the court). Secondly, the 
contempt of court charges do not reflect the court's opinions of the contents of
the book which, as far as I know, the courts have yet to review. I believe the 
Arizona court ruled Mr. Johnson was bound by a handwritten draft of an 
agreement, he made with Alcor, in which they would pay him $17,000 to keep his 
mouth shut about their activities, (even though he never signed the formal, 
typed version of the document, and he returned their $17,000 check without 
cashing it). Finally, I think the arrest warrant has something to do with Mr. 
Johnson not appearing for a court date, in Arizona. (According to court 
documents, Mr. Johnson claims to have a medical excuse for not being there.) My 
point is, none of the rulings against Mr. Johnson have been related to the 
contents of the book. In fact, Johnson's legal team indicates, in 
publicly-available documents, that the New York judge refused to issue an order 
to halt the publication and distribution of Mr. Johnson's book, and no one 
appears to have been able to make Mr. Johnson and/or his publishers remove the 
audiotapes from the Internet. The NY court also required Alcor to pay a $10,000 
bond, which is to be paid to Mr. Johnson, in the event the restraining order 
against him is later found to be "without sufficient cause."


All along, I have expected Alcor to either enter into a settlement agreement 
with Johnson et. al., or to win on the technicality of Johnson being obligated 
to not discuss their activities. Either of those outcomes would be a rather 
hollow victory, for Alcor, in my opinion. If Alcor wants to prove they are all 
they say they are, and their claims Johnson is a liar, they should let this case
go to court, and allow a jury to rule on the contents of the book.


Mr. Platt's original post suggested I might find myself in the same position as 
Johnson, (a defendant in a civil suit), due to my publicly expressed opinions of
cryonics activities. He later revised that to read, "Ms. Maxim's decision to 
endorse some of Mr. Johnson's allegations raises questions in my mind about the 
reliability of her own." I find it inappropriate for Mr. Platt to imply 
allegations I have made may be unreliable, based on my personal opinions of Mr. 
Johnson's book, (especially given that the courts have not ruled on the veracity
of Mr. Johnson's allegations), and I don't think I'm the one with credibility 
issues, here. I find it amusing that someone who has previously, on the advice 
of attorney, publicly corrected and apologized for numerous false statements 
made about me, would publicly question the reliability of MY statements.


For the record, I would not hesitate to defend my opinions of the equipment and 
personnel being used in cryonics, in any courtroom in this land. I am absolutely
certain experts involved in existing hypothermic arrest procedures, and those 
involved in the engineering of equipment for those procedures, would concur with
my opinions. Cryonics procedures should be an extension of existing hypothermic
arrest procedures, not a mockery of them. I think the public has a right to be 
aware of the activities of cryonics organizations, especially in light of their 
past questionable activities, and in consideration of the rather large sums of 
money they charge for their services. Fine print stating "cryonics is not proven
to work" is not the equivalent of "we don't use conventional medical equipment,
or qualified personnel," or "we will let just about anyone, no matter how 
unqualified, attempt to perform vascular cannulations, perfusion and 
decapitations."


My "Silver Platters" post of June 11, in which I criticized the existing 
personnel and equipment, did not contain any mention of Mr. Platt, yet it seems 
he couldn't resist jumping in the ensuing conversation. I know Mr. Platt takes 
my criticisms of cryonics personnel and equipment personally; he did so from the
time I first made suggestions for equipment changes, when we were working 
together, at SA. I suppose if he was to quit imagining my complaints are some 
sort of personal vendetta against him, he would have to acknowledge the fact 
that a medical professional, with a proper education and nearly a decade of 
experience in many, many successful hypothermic procedures, (virtually identical
to procedures being attempted, by SA and Alcor), thinks the equipment and 
personnel being used by cryonics organizations is, for the most part, absurd. My
objections to the equipment and personnel, being used for cryonics procedures, 
are an ethical issue, related to medical science. It wouldn't matter if the 
person designing and building the equipment, and selecting the personnel, was my
own mother, or one of my best friends, my response would be the same. 
(Actually, Mr. Platt should know that, because we WERE friends, until we 
starting arguing about the equipment.) I will keep making my complaints, until 
there are significant changes, or until cryonics is regulated. For now, I'm just
hoping the Alcor vs. Johnson case makes it to a jury trial, because I think 
having the contents of that book reviewed in a court of law would force cryonics
organizations to quit acting so unethically, and irresponsibly.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32635