X-Message-Number: 333
From att!cup.portal.com!alcor Tue May 14 00:33:19 PDT 1991
To:
From:
Subject: Can-rattling
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 00:33:19 PDT
Message-Id: <>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
A "CAN-RATTLER" RESPONDS
by Mike Darwin
I read Art Quaife's recent missives to this BBS with a mixture of
feelings: amusement, disgust, and deja vu. (Deja vu because they are so
reminiscent of past dealings with Dr. Quaife and Trans Time; but that
story would take another 6 pages to detail.) Aside from the apparent fact
that Trans Time (TT) has received a check for $540K from Cryomedical
Sciences there is hardly a shred of truth in anything that he has said.
The question thus becomes, "where to begin?"
I suppose starting with the simplest matters makes the most sense.
Art claims that Trans Time has the "largest capacity in the industry to
store whole body patients in stainless steel vacuum insulated dewars, plus
room for three more on a short-term emergency basis." As any careful
reader of Cryonics magazine would know (Mr. Quaife, who reportedly does
not read Cryonics magazine because he "finds it too upsetting" may perhaps
be excused for his ignorance) Alcor currently has 4 Bigfoot units, each
capable of storing 4 whole body patients, plus two dual patient units
capable of storing another 4 whole body patients, plus a single patient
whole body unit, plus a capacity for temporary (emergency) storage of 2
more whole body patients. As I figure it, that about puts us even. But
so what? The point is that we have always maintained adequate backup for
all patients, both whole body and neuro; something Trans Time has
apparently not done.
And while we are on the subject of dewars, it should be noted that
the 4 patient dewar TT is boasting about is none other than a bigfoot unit
which "can-rattling" Alcor designed and "proved-out." Indeed, we made two
trips to the manufacturer and worked over every detail of the design,
insuring that it would perform as efficiently as it does. We took
delivery on the prototype in May of 1990.
What Art did not mention was that the King Kong unit they are
currently storing most or all of their patients in was, by Mr. Quaife's
own admission some years ago, an engineering disaster. So poor was (and
is) its performance that TT paid less than half the contracted price for
it from the manufacturer. In fact, in an article by John Day, TT's chief
of engineering in the October, 1981 issue of Cryonics magazine ("Economics
of surrounding a vacuum insulated dewar with additional foam insulation"
CRYONICS pp. 13-18) describes the unit's performance as "subpar" and goes
on to give numbers showing its liquid nitrogen boil-off rate (i.e., usage)
to be approximately 73 liters per day, or a 1.5% per day boil-off rate!
Assuming TT gets 8 patients in this unit, that works out to a little over
9 liters per patient per day: a liquid cost which is 300% greater than
that experienced by "can-rattling" Alcor. Indeed, it only became
marginally economical for TT to use the "king kong" dewar when they had
almost enough patients to fill it. We would like to see TT get 10
patients into its King Kong dewar in pods; its inside diameter is about 64
inches!
By contrast, Alcor has always run with high efficiency equipment, and
we are currently in a position to store ALL of our patients in highly
reliable, seismic-resistant dewars at an average boil-off rate of 3 liters
per patient per day with 100% backup in the event of vacuum failure. The
take-home message: Alcor has always run the most efficient operation, with
the largest margin of reserves and the safest equipment from the first day
it began storing patients, whole body or neuro, and what's more we
currently have essentially the same whole body storage capacity as does TT
(and if you figure the King Kong dewar at a more realistic 8 patients,
then we have MORE whole body storage capacity than does TT).
All of this is not to mention the fact that Alcor now has capability
to store 18 neuropatients in steel re-inforced concrete vaults and another
(at a minimum) 29 neuropatients in Bigfoot or other units which we own.
However, gross capacity is hardly the whole picture and is more than
a little like saying "Mine's bigger than yours." (To which I must now
plead guilty as well!) Having lots of empty units sitting around doesn't
make good economic sense. The fact that TT has had an 8 patient capacity
unit sitting around gathering dust for nearly a decade before their
patient population became large enough to press it into service speaks
against, rather than for their good business judgment.
Now on to other, more substantive matters. Quaife states "Our
approach contrasts with the can-rattling approach of the non-profit
cryonic societies, who regularly beg for donations, which approach I find
hard to understand. Why would anyone give $1000 to the can-rattler to
further cryonics. when he could invest the $1000 in a cryonics stock
company, achieve a comparable improvement in the state of the art, and
next year have his investment worth $1100?"
Why indeed? Well, let's examine the record: It should be noted at
the start that Quaife has quite cleverly used words like "investment" and
"rate of growth" to describe the activities of TT and Cryomedical. A word
or two of clarification is worthwhile here. As Mr. Finney correctly
points out with his questions to Dr. Quaife, shifting money around from
one person(s)'s pocket to another without the exchange of real value in
terms of goods or services is quite different than running a real business
and delivering real products into the marketplace and making a profit on
them.
From my understanding, Cryomedical raised money from stock warrants
to pursue development of a blood substitute with supposed commercial
applications. This product has not been marketed and may never be. The
money Trans Time realized was thus Cryomedical stockholders' funds; not
revenues derived from product sales and real economic growth.
We have obtained a copy Dr. Segall's patent "for which [he] is
famous." The much touted blood substitute consists of common Ringer's
solution modified by the addition of potassium chloride, HEPES buffer,
magnesium sulfate, the colloid Dextran 40, and glucose. We note with
interest that the use of elevated potassium chloride concentration, and
the use of glucose and HEPES was pioneered (and published by Alcor) in
Cryonics magazine in July of 1984 ("New perfusate formulation," pp. 2-3)
(indeed, the glucose concentration in our 1984 solution is the same as in
Segall's May, 1990 patent: 1.8 g/l and the potassium concentration, ours
vs. theirs, is 2.11 g/l vs. 2.2 g/l; for all practical purposes
identical).
The history of "extracellular type" solutions such as buffered
Ringer's solution to achieve decent intervals of intermediate organ
preservation in the 0C to 4C range is dismal (1,2) and was abandoned both
by us, and by others in the organ preservation community, over a decade
ago, in favor of intracellular solutions (those which mimic the ionic
environment inside the cell) or those which prevent the cell swelling
which occurs when extracellular or Ringer's type solutions are used (4,5).
Indeed, Alcor perfusates from the start have been intracellular and have
contained an osmotically active (i.e., water-binding) impermeant solute
such as sodium glycerophosphate (mid '70's), mannitol (1980's) or sucrose
(mid to late 1980's); agents which can "hold" water and yet are too big to
leak into the cell.
Recent stunning advances in hypothermic organ preservation have
occured as a result of the systematic and careful study of ways to inhibit
cell swelling and support metabolism during hypothermia. The most recent
major advance in this respect has been the work of Belzer, Southard, and
their colleagues with the development of impermeant ionic species that
ultimately led to the development of Viaspan (6,7). Viaspan uses a
polysaccharide ion called lactobionate to inhibit chloride-induced cell
swelling. Alcor uses Viaspan (which is commercially available from DuPont
Pharmaceuticals) for patient transports. In contrast to Collins' and
Sacks' solutions, Viaspan is capable of 3-day kidney preservation (8,9)
and 24-hour liver preservation (J. Southard, personal communication) after
simple flushing of the organs and storage on ice. Keep in mind that
extracellular solutions and even intracellular solutions such as Collin's
solution could not even preserve the liver (10) or the pancreas (11) for
as little as 12 hours without serious cell swelling.
But the proof is in the pudding. Recently Alcor air-shipped a kidney
from one of our neurosuspension patients to an independent biomedical
laboratory for a viability evaluation (using slice to medium
sodium/potassium ratio, the gold standard of the industry). This kidney
was evaluated after a standard Alcor transport, including flushing with
Viaspan (TM), and after the patient's cephalon had undergone
cryoprotective perfusion AND freezing (elapsed time from deanimation was
over 72 hours). The kidney was within the range of viability considered
acceptable for transplantation ( a detailed technical case history of this
suspension is in preparation and should be published in CRYONICS within
the next 4-6 months).
Segall and TT became "famous" for their blood substitute due to the
publicity surrounding the recovery of Miles the Beagle from approximately
15 minutes of partially blood substituted chilling to 3C. Segall and his
colleagues built this "achievement" into a national media blitz and
subsequently went on to capitalize on this to create Cryomedical, with the
promise, express and implied, that this represented a major breakthrough
and the "doorway to suspended animation."
By contrast, three years before Miles (Segall's first canine success)
made the papers, Alcor was quietly and CONSISTENTLY recovering dogs from 4
hours of complete blood substitution and CONTINUOUS perfusion at 4C! And
not only getting them back, but getting them back well; without blindness
or fluid in the lungs; a problem which has reportedly killed most of the
animals Segall et al have tried to perfuse over similar time courses. In
fact, we had 100% survival: 6 out of 6 animals in the study with no long-
term problems in any animal.
To this day, we have yet to see any numbers from Segall et al,
regarding their actual success rates.
Granted we didn't get the press, nor would we have wanted the kind of
press that resulted from Segall's exploits; press which to this day
results in frequent calls to Alcor by people mistakenly believing that
"dogs have been frozen and successfully revived."
This is what TT's $540K check is based on.
However, that's not the whole story of Segall's beagle. There is an
interesting element in this tale that Dr. Quaife is not sharing. The
element I refer to is who PAID for most of the research leading up to
miracle Miles and the media extravaganza that capitalized Cryomedical?
Trans Time? Well yes, perhaps a little, perhaps to the tune of $5K or
$10K (depending upon which source you talk to). The question then arises
as to who picked up the rest of the tab which according to statements from
Dr. Segall amounted to nearly $150K (Paul Segall, personal communication)?
The answer: the nonprofit American Cryonics Society (ACS) (Smith, F.,
"Scientists get warm in search for way to put humans on ice." THE ORANGE
COUNTY REGISTER, 30 March, 1987) -- another "can-rattler." Indeed,
millionaire philanthropist David Brown contributed at least $50K towards
Segall's research in the 1980's and did so via ACS (David Brown, personal
communication). Others have also reportedly made substantial
contributions to Segall's work via nonprofit ACS.
The question then becomes, how did for-profit Trans Time get the
Cryomedical stock which TT now says it has realized $540K on? Dr. Quaife,
would you care to answer that question for the others on this BBS,
including perhaps a run-down on who voted on the issue, how they voted,
and what their corporate affiliations were at the time?
That, folks, is the ultimate irony in Quaife's statements; much of
the research (perhaps as much as 90%) which led to the creation of
Cryomedical was funded by a "can-rattling" nonprofit cryonics
organization: the American Cryonics Society.
Now, as to why people would and have given money to "can-rattling
Alcor" over "profit-making" TT. Perhaps a BRIEF recitation such as
follows (not in chronological order) will help to explain it and set the
record straight:
1) When the California Department of Health Services moved to make
cryonics illegal and force interment of ALL California suspension
patients, Trans Time did exactly nothing. By contrast, Alcor rattled its
can, got up off its can and launched a successful legal battle which has
so far cost us over $100,000. TT's net contribution to this effort:
exactly NOTHING.
This despite the fact that TT stands to gain (or lose) every bit as
much from the decision in this case as we do. This despite repeated
requests for substantive financial support from ALL other cryonics
organizations in winning this battle. Lucky thing "poor old can-rattling
Alcor" exists; especially lucky for TT's patients, since TT hasn't shown
the first hint of an inclination to spend even one thin dime in defending
their right or their customers' right to choose to be placed in or remain
in cryonic suspension.
2) Out of the 7 Alcor patients where we had advance notice of
impending deanimation, the mean time that elapsed between the start of
cardiac arrest and the start of cardiopulmonary support and external
cooling was FIVE (5) minutes (most of this time is an artifact of the
pronouncement process). And keep in mind that these numbers are skewed by
having to wait 15 minutes in one case for a coroner's release number since
it was a post-operative "death." I would like to see what TT's record in
this respect is. What's more, I'd like to see detailed case histories on
TT patients. They are available on Alcor patients.
3) Alcor currently has $354,404.64 in Federally insured accounts or
U.S. Treasury Certificates of deposit and $417,507.20 in fixed assets in
our Patient Care Fund for a total of $771,911.84. How much does TT or its
associate ACS have? How much is in Zero Coupons or other questionable
paper?
4) Alcor took a vicious and unjust assault by powerful government
officials and did not surrender ANY of its patients. Some of its staff
were taken away to jail in handcuffs. What's TT's patient care record?
5) Alcor currently has two former TT patients in its care; patients
who ran out of money and whom TT was going to cremate. But, forgive us
folks, we had to "rattle the can" to raise the money to save them; and
what's more, one of Alcor's members, Dick Jones, had to pay TT's BACK
BILLS on these patients in order for Alcor to continue with their
suspensions.
6) How many trained, certified Emergency Transport Coordinators does
TT have out in the field and in which locations? Do they have Portable
Ice Baths for rapid external cooling, heart-lung resuscitators, and
stabilizing medications? Alcor currently has 4 such Coordinators in the
US, with additional ones in Britain and Australia and one currently being
deployed in Canada.
7) What's TT's record for field transports where skilled personnel
are sent out into the field to do remote blood washout and viable air
transport of patients? Do they maintain crates of equipment for this
purpose packed and ready to go, and will they give their inventory of
these boxes on request (i.e., when was this material last updated and
checked and does it represent state-of-the art)?
9) With what frequency and with at what quality does TT or its
associated nonprofits publish a newsletter or provide information free of
charge to the public? Alcor publishes a monthly magazine. Does TT
produce an educational book of the quality of "Cryonics: Reaching for
Tomorrow," and do they distribute it free?
10) What kind of facility and in what kind of neighborhood is TT
headquartered in? How many times have TT staff or visitors been accosted
or, to put it less politely, "mugged," going to or coming from the
facility?
11) How many former TT customers are now Alcor Suspension Members?
(We can easily count 20.) How many Alcor Suspension Members are now TT
customers? We know of one.
12) How many suspension members and members in process (or customers
if you will) does TT have? Alcor publishes its numbers monthly: 236 fully
signed up suspension members, 213 in the sign-up process and 590
subscribers.
13) Has TT ever let a patient warm up? Answer: one that we know of;
an Alcor patient in TT's care was allowed to warm up approximately 150C to
nearly -50C. This was a major reason we stopped using TT storage services
and started pursuing our own. This, incidentally, is the only black mark
on our record; one which we are honest about.
14) When you call TT what are you likely to get, a human or an
answering machine? Alcor has staff in the facility 24-hours a day and a
phone similarly manned round the clock -- not to mention four skilled
people on-call by pager at any time in the LA area, in addition to one in
both the Silicon Valley and New York areas.
15) Does TT have a fully equipped ambulance and a Mobile Advanced
Life Support Cart (basically, a heart-lung machine on wheels, with extras)
to achieve viable transport and rapid cooling/blood washout of patients?
Alcor has had this capability for over 5 years.
And lest Quaife say that all this is possible because "Alcor got a
lot of money from the Dick Jones estate," (a charge I've heard repeated by
journalists who have visited TT before coming to see us) keep in mind that
with the exception of the litigation to establish the legality of
cryonics, ALL of the above, including our fully member-owned facility was
in place and paid for before Dick even got sick!
The above should give the lie to Dr. Quaife's assertion that TT and
"can-rattling" Alcor offer "comparable improvement in the state-of-the
art." It is my belief, based on conversations with individuals present at
TT suspensions, and with those who have had access to some of the data
generated from those suspensions, that Trans Time has a dismal record of
patient care, although objective documentation of this is difficult
because they don't publish detailed case histories as Alcor does.
In short, every significant technological and legal advance made in
cryonics over the past decade has been as a result of Alcor's efforts.
Unlike the for-profit TT, our bottom line has been improved patient care,
spreading the word about cryonics, and saving our own and our member's
lives. We are all capitalists here, and when the time comes we will reap
the profits that may well come from cryonics. But not in any short-
sighted way, and certainly not by gloatingly taking money out of
investors' pockets without a solid return in the of form worthwhile
products introduced into the marketplace and sold at a profit.
Make no mistake. The marketplace HAS spoken regarding TT and Alcor.
Alcor has sustained a steady exponential rate of growth over the past
decade. We have nearly twice as many patients in suspension as does TT,
and more to the point in my opinion, in substantially better condition on
average. We receive more information requests in one day than TT and ACS
combined do in a week (Norm Lewis, personal communication) and we convert
a staggering 3.8% of those requests into fully signed-up, dues-paying
suspension members. THAT is the MARKETPLACE in action.
I would also like to point out that, Quaife's remarks about the Dora
Kent incident to the contrary, the press Alcor has received, including and
perhaps especially the Dora Kent press, has resulted only in increased
growth and increased favorable media attention. More than one of the
people who have joined Alcor recently has stated that they did so BECAUSE
of our behavior in defending Mrs. Kent's suspension. The bottom lines is,
we have the numbers to prove it. Would Dr. Quaife care to share with us
his figures on rate of growth and current fully DOCUMENTED and fully
signed-up suspension members or customers, as well as the criteria they
use to justify this number?
People have given support and money to Alcor because Alcor has
delivered, and delivered time and again, often under very adverse
circumstances. Clever stock deals and a 13.9% return on investment
compounded annually don't count for much when you're lying in a nursing
home or hospital a breath away from oblivion. Performance counts. Can-
rattling Alcor performs.
In short, to quote the popular Smith-Barney ad, Alcor has gotten its
money the old fashioned way: we've EARNED it!
My thanks to Dr. Quaife for providing me with the opportunity to
comment on these issues. For those of you who would like additional
information on Alcor and cryonics please call 800-367-2228 or send your
postal address for a FREE copy of CRYONICS: REACHING FOR TOMORROW, our
brand new, lavishly illustrated, 108 page book which provides detailed
information on every aspect of cryonics, including an extensive 16 page
patient revival/repair scenario by cryobiologist Dr. Greg Fahy.
-- Mike Darwin
1) Martin, D.C., et al., "Experimental renal preservation." J UROL.,
103:681 (1970).
2) Herman, T.J., et al., "Preservation of canine kidneys by hypothermia
and low-flow perfusion with a bloodless perfusate." ARCH. SUR., 98:121
(1969).
3) Collins, G.M., et al., "Kidney preservation for transportation. 3.
Initial perfusion an 30 hour ice storage." LANCET 2:1219 (1969).
4) Barry, J.M., et al, "Human kidney preservation by flushing with
intracellular solution and cold storage." ARCH. SURG., 113:830 (1978).
5) Liu, W.P., et al., "48 storage of canine kidneys after brief perfusion
with Collin's solution." ANN. SURG., 173:748 (1971)
6) Southard, J.H., and Belzer, F.O., "Control of canine kidney cortex
slice volume and ion distribution at hypothermia by impermeable anions."
CRYOBIOLOGY, 17:540 (1980).
7) Walberg, et al., "Development of a cold storage solution for pancreas
preservation." CRYOBIOLOGY, 23:477 (1986).
8) Udea, Y., et al., "The UW solution for canine kidney preservation: its
specific effects on renal hemodynamics and microvasculature.
TRANSPLANTATION, 48:913 (1989).
9) Ploeg, R.J., "Kidney Preservation with the UW and Euro-Collins
solution; A preliminary report of a clinical comparison." TRANSPLANTATION,
49:281 (1990).
10) D'Alessandro, A., et al.,"Comparison of cold storage and perfusion of
dog livers on function of tissue slices." CRYOBIOLOGY, 23:161 (1986).
11) Walberg, et al., "Development of a cold storage solution for pancreas
preservation." CRYOBIOLOGY, 23:477 (1986).
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=333