Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

of plague dogs and cryonics

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
outrider - 26 Jun 2005 16:19 GMT
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I am a medical doctor but presently am the director of a lab doing
> basical biomedical research. Topics are resuscitation, liquid
> ventilation, pharamaceutical drug delivery and microemulsions. Our
> research model is the dog, which we breed in-house. We're also a
> cat/kitten rescue and adoption service on the side, figuring to make up
> for the bad dog-karma with some good cat-karma. We're under USDA
> inspection as a research facility, and our consulting vet is involved
> in both the research and the rescue work. This has given me the chance
> to learn some vet stuff. It's amazing how much it overlaps with human
> medicine. I would say 90% of it is the same.

> SBH

"Topics are resuscitation, liquid ventilation, pharamaceutical drug
delivery and microemulsions."

Cryonics? (You didn't think I'd get that did you.)

I think you'd have to do a lot of cat karma to make up for killing dogs
so wealthy wackos could be frozen until some time in the future when
they're rescusitated with just, er...slight brain and other organ
damage.

Zee
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 00:46 GMT
"Topics are resuscitation, liquid ventilation, pharamaceutical drug
delivery and microemulsions."

>>Cryonics? (You didn't think I'd get that did you.)
I think you'd have to do a lot of cat karma to make up for killing dogs

so wealthy wackos could be frozen until some time in the future when
they're rescusitated with just, er...slight brain and other organ
damage. <<

COMMENT:

Hypothermia's a hot topic these days. Hypothermia induction for
purposes of minimizing brain damage after resuscitation isn't cryonics.

Circulation. 2005 Jun 21;111(24):3195-201. Epub 2005 Jun 13.

Hypothermia improves defibrillation success and resuscitation outcomes
from ventricular fibrillation.

Boddicker KA, Zhang Y, Zimmerman MB, Davies LR, Kerber RE.

Cardiovascular Center, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, USA.

BACKGROUND: Induced hypothermia is recommended to improve neurological
outcomes in unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital ventricular
fibrillation (VF) cardiac arrest. Patients resuscitated from a VF
arrest are at risk of refibrillation, but there are few data on the
effects of already existing
hypothermia on defibrillation and resuscitation. METHODS AND RESULTS:
Thirty-two swine (mean+/-SE weight, 23.0+/-0.6 kg) were divided into 4
groups: normothermia (n=8), mild hypothermia (35 degrees C) (n=8),
moderate hypothermia (33 degrees C) (n=8), and severe hypothermia (30
degrees C) (n=8). Hypothermia was induced by surrounding the animal
with ice, and VF was electrically induced. After 8 minutes of
unsupported VF (no CPR), the swine were defibrillated (biphasic
waveform) with successive shocks as needed and underwent CPR until
resumption of spontaneous circulation or no response (> or =10
minutes). First-shock defibrillation success was higher in the moderate
hypothermia group (6 of 8
hypothermia versus 1 of 8 normothermia; P=0.04). The number of shocks
needed for late defibrillation (> or =1 minute after initial shock) was
less in all 3 hypothermia groups compared with normothermia (all
P<0.05). None of the 8 animals in the normothermia group achieved
resumption of spontaneous circulation compared with 3 of 8 mild
hypothermia (P=NS), 7 of 8 moderate hypothermia (P=0.001), and 5 of 8
severe hypothermia (P=0.03) animals. Coronary perfusion pressure during
CPR was not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: When VF was
induced in the setting of moderate or severe hypothermia, resuscitative
measures were facilitated with significantly improved defibrillation
success and resuscitation outcome. The beneficial effect of hypothermia
was not due to alteration of coronary perfusion pressure, which
suggests that changes in the mechanical, metabolic, or
electrophysiological properties of the myocardium may
be responsible.

PMID: 15956132 [PubMed - in process]

===================================
Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb;33(2):414-8.

Hypothermia for neuroprotection after cardiac arrest: systematic review
and
individual patient data meta-analysis.

Holzer M, Bernard SA, Hachimi-Idrissi S, Roine RO, Sterz F, Mullner M;
on behalf of the Collaborative Group on Induced Hypothermia for
Neuroprotection After Cardiac Arrest.

Department of Emergency Medicine, General Hospital Vienna, Medical
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

OBJECTIVE: Only a few patients survive cardiac arrest with favorable
neurologic recovery. Our objective was to assess whether induced
hypothermia improves neurologic recovery in survivors of primary
cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCE: Studies were identified by a computerized
search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PASCAL, the Cochrane Controlled
Trial Register, and BIOSIS. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized and
quasi-randomized, controlled trials of adults who were successfully
resuscitated, where therapeutic hypothermia was applied within 6
hrs after arrival at the emergency department and where the neurologic
outcome was compared. We excluded studies without a control group and
studies with historical controls. DATA EXTRACTION: All authors of the
identified trials supplied individual patient data with a predefined
set of variables. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified three randomized
trials. The analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat
principle. Summary odds ratios were calculated using a random effects
model and translated into risk ratios. More patients in the hypothermia
group were discharged with favorable neurologic recovery (risk ratio,
1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.07). The 95% confidence interval
of the number-needed-to-treat to allow one additional patient to leave
the hospital with favorable neurologic recovery was 4-13. One study
followed patients to 6 months or death. Being alive at 6 months with
favorable functional neurologic recovery was more likely in the
hypothermia
group (risk ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Mild therapeutic hypothermia improves short-term
neurologic recovery and survival in patients resuscitated from cardiac
arrest of presumed cardiac origin. Its long-term effectiveness and
feasibility at an organizational level need further research.

Publication Types:
   Meta-Analysis
   Review

PMID: 15699847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

========================================

Resuscitation. 2001 Aug;50(2):189-204.

Rapid (0.5 degrees C/min) minimally invasive induction of hypothermia
using cold perfluorochemical lung lavage in dogs.

Harris SB, Darwin MG, Russell SR, O'Farrell JM, Fletcher M, Wowk B.

Critical Care Research, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga, CA,  USA.
sbharris@ix.netcom.com

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate minimally invasive rapid body core and brain
cooling in a large animal model. DESIGN: Prospective controlled animal
trial. SETTING: Private research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Adult dogs,
anesthetized, mechanically ventilated. INTERVENTIONS: Cyclic lung
lavage with FC-75 perfluorochemical (PFC) was administered through a
dual-lumen endotracheal system in the new technique of 'gas/liquid
ventilation' (GLV). In Trial-I, lavage volume (V-lav) was 19 ml/kg,
infused and withdrawn over a cycle period (tc) of 37 s. (effective
lavage rate V'-lav=31 ml/kg/min.) Five dogs received cold
(approximately 4 degrees C) PFC; two controls received isothermic PFC.
In Trial-II, five dogs received GLV at V-lav=8.8 ml/kg, tc=16 s,
V'-lav=36 ml/kg/min. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
Trial-I tympanic temperature change was -3.7+/-0.6 degrees C (SD) at
7.5 min, reaching -7.3+/-0.6 degrees C at 18 min. Heat transfer
efficiency was 60%. In Trial-II, efficiency fell to 40%, but
heat-exchange dead space (VDtherm) remained constant. Lung/blood
thermal equilibration half-time was <8 s. Isothermic GLV caused
hypercapnia unless gas ventilation was increased. At necropsy after
euthanasia (24 h), modest lung injury was seen. CONCLUSIONS: GLV
cooling times are comparable to those for cardiopulmonary bypass. Heat
and CO(2) removal can be independently controlled by changing the mix
of lavage and gas ventilation. Due to VDtherm of approximately 6 ml/kg
in dogs, efficient V-lav is >18 ml/kg. GLV cooling power appears more
limited by PFC flows than lavage
residence times. Concurrent gas ventilation may mitigate heat-diffusion
limitations in liquid breathing, perhaps via bubble-induced turbulence.

PMID: 11719148 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
terrisk@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2005 01:04 GMT
> "Topics are resuscitation, liquid ventilation, pharamaceutical drug
> delivery and microemulsions."
[quoted text clipped - 144 lines]
>
> PMID: 11719148 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The first one and the third one are not really of much clinical
significance *except* insofar as they suggest that cooling *before*
cardiac arrest/VF occurs protects the brain. This isn't new -
hypothermia's been used in OR's for more than 20 years when significant
hypoxia is expected during surgery. Kids in particular have survived
extended periods of cardiac arrest when they have fallen through ice
etc. Drowing victims are often protected for a short period of time if
the water is relatively cool. So if you can cool the person down before
s/he arrests s/he'll have abetter chance of surviving....Not a whole
lot of use in the real world though, where cardiac arrest is usually
unexpected.

The second abstract doesn't have enough info to judge exactly what's
being researched. Without information as to the cause of the cardiac
arrest - after all hypothermia itself can cause cardiac arrest - it's a
bit difficult to judge whether or not the findings are of any clinical
significance.

Have you given up on your cryonics work? Is the real end goal of your
research no longer resusuitation after years/decades/centuries of
suspended animation through freezing?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 02:33 GMT
>>The first one and the third one are not really of much clinical
significance *except* insofar as they suggest that cooling *before*
cardiac arrest/VF occurs protects the brain. <<

COMMENT:

The third trial was merely an animal model showing it's possible to
produce hypothermia very rapidly. That can be done also AFTER a cardiac
arrest, provided that a perfusing rhythm has been established.

Yes, the first abstract is looking at hypothermia induced before
arrest.

The second is a metaanalysis of three trials of INDUCED post
resuscitation hypothermia in humans. In all of these hypothermia was
INDUCED after the resuscitationed patient arrived at the hospital. If
you read the individual studies, you will see that patient admission
temp is a controlled variable. It doesn't differ between treatment and
control groups PRIOR to randomization to post resuscitation
hypothermia. So temperature during arrest is not a factor. Nor is
hypothermia a cause of arrest in any of these cases--- those were
excluded. These are primary cardiac arrest cases. Many from heart
attack and surely most form primary cardiac diseases. The point of the
study is that humans benefit from post arrest cooling just as animals
do (and there are many animal trials of POST resuscitation induced
hypothermia if you'd like me to post some).

>>Have you given up on your cryonics work? Is the real end goal of your research no longer resusuitation after years/decades/centuries of suspended animation through freezing? <<

COMMENT:

Well, that's one of my really LONG TERM goals :).  But most of those
advances will be made by the organ preservation people, at temperatures
far below those at which I work. I'm interested in taking off 5 degrees
C, really, really fast.

SBH
outrider - 27 Jun 2005 15:40 GMT
> "Topics are resuscitation, liquid ventilation, pharamaceutical drug
> delivery and microemulsions."
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Hypothermia's a hot topic these days.

Lucky for you...

Even for the Last .400 Hitter, Cryonics Is the Longest Shot
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., July 9 - In a few days, after chemicals have
frozen the body of Ted Williams, it will be placed upside-down in a
titanium-steel cylinder here, sharing space with as many as three other
bodies and, perhaps, five heads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/10/science/10WILL.html?ex=1119931200&en=4e97f9574
6de4f3f&ei=5070&oref=login

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 18:31 GMT
> Hypothermia's a hot topic these days.
>>Lucky for you...

COMMENT
In standard medical literature also. Luck has nothing to do with it.

As for Ted Williams, I'm yawning. Cryonics stories and pictures go back
to LIFE magazine in Feb. 1967. The first photo of a cryonics procedure
to appear in TIME came out in May or June of 1988 (taken by me, as it
happens). Publicity comes and goes. And rarely means anything.

SBH
outrider - 27 Jun 2005 19:00 GMT
> > Hypothermia's a hot topic these days.
> >>Lucky for you...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> SBH

Chief Medcial Advisor: Steven B. Harris M.D.
http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/indexdir.html
http://www.alcor.org

Even for the Last .400 Hitter, Cryonics Is the Longest Shot
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., July 9 - In a few days, after chemicals have
frozen the body of Ted Williams, it will be placed upside-down in a
titanium-steel cylinder here, sharing space with as many as three other
bodies and, perhaps, five heads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/10/science/10WILL.html?ex=1119931200&e...
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 19:15 GMT
LOL. Yes, I agreed to give advice somewhat after Ted Williams. Though
what they really needed was a super public relations advisor.

Or it's possible nothing would have helped. My experience of modern
journalism is that it is one of the most petty, gratuitously vicious,
integrity-free professions on the face of the planet. And one of the
most ignorant. There's really no good way to deal with them except to
just say no.

SBH
outrider - 27 Jun 2005 20:22 GMT
> LOL. Yes, I agreed to give advice somewhat after Ted Williams. Though
> what they really needed was a super public relations advisor.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> SBH

LOL. Yes, I agreed to give advice somewhat after Ted Williams.

~~~~~~~~~

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Cryonics in NY?
Date: 29 Aug 1996
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics

 >> Alcor's decision to move into the site it chose has turned out to
be obviously successful (Harris & Kent wanted them to move into a
building that was literally next to a junk yard!). <<

... I have just reviewed the Sept 3, 1993 videotape I made of the area
surrounding the building being spoken of ... and the building is in a
nice industrial division, frontedby desert (with an airport in the
distance), and surrounded by industrial buildings and desert lots with
sagebrush.

-------snip---------

Ted Williams - Date of Death: 5 July 2002
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 Jun 2005 21:07 GMT
COMMENT:

I meant of course medical advice, not real estate advice.

But let's be fair, I've given cryonicists medical advice over the
years, also. I haven't always been listened to. And I haven't had a
cryonics organization *title.*  Golly, the honor. And I'm still not
always listened to.

And what's with trying to bug me with the Ted Williams thing, anyway?
He wanted to be cryonicized and he got what he wanted. This is not a
crime, and it's not immoral. I personally think it's kind of neat,
although many sports "fans" who figure that they know better than Ted
did, what should have happened to Ted's body, disagree. Apparently. And
I probably would have been involved if I hadn't been on vacation.
Cryonics is a good thing, not a bad one.

What are you going to have done with YOUR body, "Zee"?  Will it be
pretty?  Will your wishes be carried out by those who care about you?
(*Are* there any such people?)

And finally, please note that the the reason you're able to find
information on my life is that I post under my own name, freely.  My
skeletons, such as I have, rattle for everybody. Whereas, you are an
anonymous, faceless, ignorant, malevolant coward. Which is to say, a
journalist-type to the last. A slasher, LOL.  Feel free to use your
real name, here, and show some integrity. It isn't like *I* don't know
it. But I seem to have a bit more self-restraint than you do.

SBH
outrider - 27 Jun 2005 23:58 GMT
"...Dr. Lemler was willing to lead a tour of the Alcor complex,
including the entirely nondescript concrete room in which eight "big
foot" cylinders and two shorter ones are housed and monitored so their
inhabitants, bodies and heads immersed in liquid nitrogen, are assured
of an optimal chance for life after life."

....

"The larger cylinders can accommodate up to five heads and four bodies,
which are stored upside down so that any leakage would first affect the
feet, nt the brain. The smaller cylinders can hold up to eight heads."

...

For now, Dr. Lemler said, people prefer storing heads over bodies by a
ratio of about 2 to 1. He declined to provide specific numbers. One
reason, he acknowledged, is money. Heads cost less to maintain because
they require less space and fewer freezing compounds. But they also
provide all that might be necessary through future stem-cell growth
that would presumably restore the head to a fully healthy body."
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 00:20 GMT
>>For now, Dr. Lemler said, people prefer storing heads over bodies by a
ratio of about 2 to 1. He declined to provide specific numbers. One
reason, he acknowledged, is money. Heads cost less to maintain because
they require less space and fewer freezing compounds. But they also
provide all that might be necessary through future stem-cell growth
that would presumably restore the head to a fully healthy body." <<

COMMENT:

Yes.  All basic information available on www.alcor.org.  So?

I think there are certain scenarios which wind people's clocks from a
monkey-emotional point of view. Besides the obvious problems with
snakes and spiders, there are two others that go deep in the psyche.
One of them is travel to a place where you're a stranger. In time
travel, that's where you're an anacronism, the device that first made
H.G. Wells a famous writer. The other has to do with the idea of
disembodied body parts and particularly heads. If you want to scare the
crap out of a monkey, show it a monkey head (this means leopards in the
vicinity). Or take it away from the troop.

In one of my lectures on this subject I've pointed out that Washington
Irving wrote several dozens of short stories, but nobody knows any of
them but two. He's only remembered for 1) Rip Van Winkle, and 2) The
Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

SBH
outrider - 28 Jun 2005 01:55 GMT
What would you call a laboratory where dogs are frozen alive to further
research for ALCOR, the cryonics facility that stores the HEADS of
people who believe they are going to be rescusitated back to life
sometimes in the future?

Steve Harris calls it his.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Missing head

Is It A Crime To Live Forever?

By M. Schudel

Saul Kent and Bill Faloon hope to cheat death with vitamins,
experimental drugs and frozen bodies.  But the government says their
path to the future isn't visionary--it's criminal.

 On the cold page of the court docket, there is nothing remarkable
about the case of the United States vs. Saul Kent and William Faloon.
On Nov. 5, 1991, the two men were indicted by a federal grand jury in
Fort Lauderdale for conspiring to import pharmaceutical drugs not
approved for sale in this country.  Faloon faces 27 counts, Kent 28.

 They will go on trial sometime early in 1992 in the courtroom of
U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzales Jr.  But this is more than just
another court case, and these are no ordinary people.

 Behind the plain surface of the official charges lurks a
complicated, sordid tangle of accusations and mystery.  This is about
more than just illegal pharmaceuticals.  This is a case dark with
conspiracy, international intrigue, a battle against the government,
hard to trace money, frozen bodies, a missing head -- and the hopes of
eternal life.

 Kent and Faloon are controversial figures in a controversial
movement to increase the human life span by any number of unorthodox
means.  They consider themselves visionaries.  They talk wistfully of
a time when science will overcome death, when we can live indefinitely
in the perfect health of youth.  Of course, Saul Kent is a man who had
his mother's head cut off, and Bill Faloon is a man who travels on
commercial airlines wearing a fire proof hood.

 The battle has been building for a full decade, ever since the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration first investigated Kent and Faloon's Life
Extension Foundation in Hollywood, Fla.

 "They's done everything they can think of to get rid of us." says
Saul Kent, the president of Life Extension.  "But they don't have a
shred of evidence that any of this is true."

 Whether there is evidence or not, the accusations are numerous and
specific.  The first count of the indictment charges Kent and Faloon
with conspiracy; they also face 13 counts of importing unapproved
drugs without prescriptions and four counts of importing
pharmaceutical drugs in packages labeled "nutritional supplements."
In addition, Kent stands accused of obstruction of justice for
destroying evidence.

 On Nov. 7, 1991, the two men were arrested, handcuffed,
fingerprinted and jailed for four hours.  They were released on
$825,000 bond each.  If convicted on all counts, the 53 year-old Kent
could fact up to 84 years in prison.  Faloon, Life Extension's 38
year-old vice president could serve 79 years.  They could be fined up
to $7 million each.  But if they win, they believe they will be on
their way toward their ultimate goal of dismantling the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

 For years they have been in a cat-and-mouse game, with the FDA
leveling charges and investigations, and Kent and Faloon answering
with a strident advertising and letter-writing campaign.  Few people
in the country have been so outspoken and persistent.  They have
filed, by Kent's estimate, seven lawsuits against the FDA and recently
won a judgment requiring the agency to pay some of their attorneys'
fees.

 They have publicly accused the FDA of everything from incompetence
to murder.  They claim the FDA -- by keeping new drugs off the market
-- has killed more people than the Nazi concentration camps.  They
have vowed to press warcrime charges against the FDA in the World
Court.

 Before Kent and Faloon were indicted in 1991, prosecutors offered
them a deal of minimal prison time if they would plead guilty to only
three of the 28 charges.  They refused.  They say the U.S. government
is threatening not just their livelihoods, but their very lives.

 "If were to capitulate, we would be facing the inevitability of
aging and death, "says Faloon.  "It really is life or death."

 Saul Kent and William Faloon would not have their current troubles
except for one thing:  They want to live forever.  It is the passion
at the heart of everything they do.

 Kent and Faloon are well known in the small competitive world of
life extension.  Faloon a bachelor, lives in Hollywood, Fla., and Kent
lives with his wife in Riverside, Calif.  Neither man is a scientist,
neither has made any discoveries that would increase life expectancy.
Kent is a writer by profession.  Faloon, oddly enough, is trained to
be a mortician.

 In 1964 Kent read a book by Robert C.W. Ettinger called *The
Prospect of Immortality*.  When Ettinger wrote that people could be
frozen after death and revived at a later time, he became known as the
father of cryonics.  His ideas gave Saul Kent his lifelong mission.

 "I didn't like the idea of getting old and dying," Kent explains,
"There is no future in death."

 A native of the Bronx and onetime semi-professional baseball player,
Kent helped found the Cryonics Society of New York.  In 1968 he
participated in one of the first cryonic "suspensions" in which a body
was put eternally on ice.  He worked on technical magazines and wrote
a couple of books, including one called *Future Sex,* which speculated
on better loving through science.  He became an advocate of life
extension in all its forms -- cryonics, vitamins, nutrients, and
experimental drugs.  He believes that within 100 years technology will
conquer aging and death.

 In 1980 Kent and his mother, Dora, moved to Florida, where Kent met
William Faloon and began to publish a newsletter called *The Life
Extension Report*.  Kent worked out of an ugly fortress of a building
on Hollywood Boulevard owned by his silent partner, a shady character
named Stephen Ruddel.

 Often described as a Howard Hughes-like figure, Ruddel put up
$100,000 to start the Life Extension Foundation, but he took no part
in running it.  A big player in South Florida real estate, Ruddel
rarely left the building, watching the world though binoculars and
telescopes.

 In 1986, it became apparent why.  A Hollywood Police SWAT team
landed on the roof in a nighttime helicopter raid, rappelled down the
side of the building, and discovered a filthy apartment littered with
hundreds of ether bottles, gold coins, platinum bars valued at
$80,000, feathers, wigs, and suggestive snapshots of young women.  The
building had an elaborate system of cameras and alarms, and razor wire
was uncoiled inside the air ducts.

 The 47-year-old Ruddel was captured as he tried to escape on foot
wearing only black bikini underwear and deck shoes.  He was later
convicted of cocaine possession and sentenced to 3 1/2 years of
probation.

 Authorities returned to the building on Feb. 26, 1987, raiding Kent
and Faloon's Life Extension Products.  In a 12-hour search, FDA agents
seized hundreds of products and documents.  The company's mail-order
business was shut down, about 10 employees lost their jobs, and Kent
and Faloon found themselves under federal investigation.

 "They wanted us to go out of business and go away," Kent says.
"They don't like anything we do."

 As two grand-jury inquiries dragged on, Faloon moved the Life
Extension office to Griffin Road in Davie, while Kent took his ailing
mother to Southern California to be close to a cryonics laboratory
called Alcor.

 Of all the forms of life extension, cryonics is the weirdest.
Cryonicists are a mostly male band of futurists who tend to read a lot
of science fiction, and have an almost religious faith in the power of
technology.

 They debate over the best methods of freezing -- whole body or
"neuro."  The trend today is toward neuro-preservation, or storing a
severed head in a pot of liquid nitrogen bubbling away at 320 degrees
below zero.  Devotees of cryonics think they can literally come back
from the dead.  The put their trust in a theoretical science called
nanotechnology, believing it can knit them new bodies, jump-start
their brains, and bring eternal youth and life everlasting.

 "A lot of these cryonics people live in a fantasy world," says a
former associate of Kent and Faloon.  "They can do nothing but talk
and speculate and abstract until they become like a group of medieval
bishops debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin."

 The former president of Alcor, Mike Darwin, used to freeze turtles
as a boy and change his last name from Federowicz in honor of Charles
Darwin.  To devote all his energies to cryonics, another member of the
group is said to have castrated himself, using a local anesthetic and
a scalpel.

 Bill Faloon is so serious about cryonics that during takeoffs and
landings of airline flights, he wears an asbestos-lined helmet.  If
the plane crashes and burns, he believes his head could be saved and
frozen.

 "It's a nice, secure feeling," says Faloon.  "I can't understand why
everyone else doesn't do it" -- but he admits he gets plenty of
puzzled stares from fellow passengers.

 In December of 1987, 83-year-old Dora Kent was fading fast.  She had
arthritis and degenerative brain disease and couldn't care for
herself.  Saul Kent checked his mother out of her nursing home and
brought her to Alcor, where she died at 12:27 a.m. on Dec. 11, 1987.
Later that morning an Alcor surgical team -- though none of its
members was an actual surgeon -- cut off her head.

 The California health department refused to issue a death
certificate because a physician was not present at the time of death,
and because, as anyone could see, Dora Kent had no head.  The
coroner's office spent weeks examining the decapitated corpse.

 At the time, the Riverside County coroners were the Keystone Kops of
pathology, known for botching autopsies and losing bodies.  When a
husband-and-wife team of coroners sold their house, they left behind
25 boxes of body parts -- it turned out they were doing freelance
autopsies on their backyard picnic table.

 The Riverside coroner first ruled that Dora Kent had died of
pneumonia, then changed his mind and called it murder.  He decided
that some of the preservative drugs injected by the cryonics team
could not have penetrated Mrs. Kent's tissue unless she was alive.  A
SWAT team raided Alcor, handcuffing five people and hauling them off
to jail.  Documents, equipment, and two German shepherd dogs were
seized, and Riverside officials demanded that someone bring them the
head of Dora Kent.

 In the end, a judge ruled that Alcor didn't have to thaw out the
head to satisfy the curiosity of the coroner's office.  By bizarre
coincidence, the pathologist who conducted the investigation died, and
the case became, so to speak, a dead issue.  No one will say where
Dora Kent's head came to rest, though one rumor places it in a South
Florida warehouse.

 Even before the scandal of the missing head, the people at Alcor had
alienated many in the already alien world of cryonics.  The founder of
the movement, Robert Ettinger (who has frozen his own mother in
Michigan), went on record opposing the "arrogance and hostility" of
the group supported by Saul Kent.

 Most serious scientists consider cryonics a worthless offshoot of
science fiction.  A prominent researcher in the legitimate
cold-temperature science of cryobiology, Arthur W. Rowe, scoffs at the
whole idea.

 "Believing cryonics could reanimate somebody who has been frozen,"
he has said, "is like believing you can turn hamburger back into a
cow."

 As California investigators sought answers about Dora Kent, federal
agents sifted through her son's business dealings and found what they
claim is an international network of deceit.  Saul Kent and Bill
Faloon say all they did was tell people how to get around the FDA's
restrictive rules.

 "The FDA indicted us for recommending people to offshore companies,"
says Faloon.  "We would refer these people to where they could find
the drugs."

 But the indictment says nothing about newsletters or
recommendations.  Instead, Kent and Faloon are accused of shipping
unapproved drugs to the United States through phony foreign
corporations.

 The indictment cites the Longevity Institute, established in Panama
in 1984, and its later incarnation in Austria, the Hauptmann
Institute.  Prosecutors say the institute was nothing more than a
post-office box in Vienna and that its director, one "Dr. Karl-Gustav
Hauptmann," doesn't exist.

 They charge that Hauptmann was a product of the imagination of Kent
and Faloon, that he was nothing more than an male model in a lab coat.
Indeed, the spelling and hyphenation of his name change from one
brochure to another, and no one has seen the mystery doctor in person.

 "We strongly protest the charge that Bill and Saul created these
companies as a front," say their attorney, Michael Pasano.  "If the
government thinks we're Hauptmann, where's the beef?  Where's the
money?  We'd like to find Dr. Hauptmann, just like anybody else."

 Hauptmann wasn't the only mystery man doing business with Saul Kent
and Bill Faloon.  According to the indictment, a "John Steinmark" took
out two private mailboxes in Hollywood to conduct Hauptmann business.

 An FBI report has linked Faloon's fingerprints and handwriting with
checks and other materials signed by Steinmark.  Records show that a
Hauptmann Institute mailing list sent by Steinmark was wrapped in a
*Wall Street Journal* addressed to William Faloon.

 "John Steinmark was a partner in a company we used to have called
the Vitamin Factory," Faloon explains.  "The Hauptmann Institute was
real in that it was a real company in Europe, supplying drugs.  We
simply recommended them as a source to buyers -- one of many companies
we recommended ."

 For his part, Saul Kent is charge with obstruction of justice for
destroying Hauptmann Institute brochures printed by a company in
Hollywood.

 "The whole case is ludicrous," argues Kent.  "We didn't do anything,
and they don't have any evidence that we did."

 The government charges that the institute sold powerful unapproved
drugs through the mail without a doctor's prescription.  The Hauptmann
Institute advertised its drugs as "effective or highly effective"
against cancer, AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, influenza, senility,
arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, lung disease and
cataracts.  Others were said to improve thinking and memory, prevent
premature old age, enhance sexual performance, and extend the life
span by as much as 75 percent.

 If the elusive Dr. Hauptmann and his miracle drugs could do half of
what was claimed, it is a wonder the rest of the world hasn't heard of
him.  But regardless of who ran the Hauptmann Institute, the drugs on
its sales list were among the most powerful known to pharmacology.

 L-Dopa and Parlodel, for example, affect neurotransmitters in the
brain and can be lethal without medical supervision.  Isoprinosine --
sold as the remarkable new antiviral drug that can help prevent colds,
the flu, cancer, and AIDS has been rejected by the FDA several times
because it doesn't do what the manufacturers claim.  Ethoxyquin 100
was promoted for its ability to "extend lifespan and breeding time,"
but it turns out ethoxyquin is a chemical used to preserve apples and
pears.  Inderal is a high-powered drug that slows the heart rate, and
unless monitored, can easily cause death.

 "It's a tragedy waiting to happen," says Paul Doering, professor of
pharmacy at the University of Florida.  "Certainly their claims are
empty, and to me as a scientist and pharmacist, they are dangerous."

 He can only laugh at the benefits credited to a drug called
hydergine, increased intelligence and protection against cancer and
heart disease.

 "That's probably the most outrageous claim I've heard all year," he
says.

 "There is no evidence whatsoever," Saul Kent asserts in defence of
Hauptmann or himself, "that anyone who purchased the products was
harmed in any way."

 "Talk is cheap, let's face it," concluded Doering.  "Consumer fraud
can take many forms.  Unfortunately, this one is potentially deadly."

 Even with powerful evidence lined up against them, Kent and Faloon
appear confident.  If nothing else, the controversy has brought them
considerable attention.

 "It's been great for business," says Faloon.  "When the FDA started
attacking us, we had 4,500 members.  Now we have 10,000."

 These people are more than just subscribers to a newsletter.  They
are believers in the cause.  Hundreds have written to Congress to
condemn the FDA, and dozens more have written to U.S. Judge Jose
Gonzalez.

 More than a year after the indictment, the case remains caught in
legal delays.  Kent and Faloon's attorneys have filed seven motions to
dismiss the charges.  It will be at least February of 1993 before the
jury trial begins in Fort Lauderdale.  Kent and Faloon are prepared to
be in court for several months.

 They have already spent more than $800,000 in legal fees, draining a
corporate fund once promised for research.  It's uncertain how much
money Kent and Faloon have, since Life Extension hasn't filed a tax
return for more than six years.

 Faloon says that the tax-exempt foundation has asked for a series of
extensions because its records have been tied up or lost in the
five-year struggle with the FDA.  (In 1985 -- the last year it filed a
return -- Life Extension reported an income of about $300,000, though
a former staff member says it actually took in more than $4 million.)

 No one knows how much money the FDA and the Justice Department have
spent on their 10-year investigation.  Kent and Faloon's Freedom of
Information requests have been rebuffed.

 "The government is spending millions of dollars of taxpayers'
money," charges Kent.

 The U.S. Attorney's office ignored or refused to answer seven
requests from *Sunshine* to discuss the case.  The FDA had no comment.

 Saul Kent and Bill Faloon think of themselves as lone Davids
fighting a government Goliath.  They believed if they shout long
enough and loud enough, they can bring the FDA tumbling down.

 "We are going to win," Saul Kent pronounces with conviction.

 In the end, this tale of two strange men and the Byzantine world
they have entered leaves a field of unanswered questions.

 Are Kent and Faloon charlatans taking advantage of human insecurity
about health and age, defrauding thousands of people in defiance of
all accepted standards of health?  Or do they really possess some
secret that will set them free from the bonds of mere mortality?

 Are they dreamers, or are they schemeing masterminds of a criminal
enterprise that, for a full decade, has slipped past the grasp of the
law?

 Saul Kent and Bill Faloon are friendly men, willing to discuss their
troubles and hopes, willing to promote their cause.  They may be too
willing.

 In the back pages of *Longevity* magazine, a favorite of the
life-extension crowd, a small ad has run for Baxamed Medical Center, a
clinic in Switzerland.  It offers experimental treatments to slow the
aging process and sells many of the same mail order drugs that got the
Hauptmann Institute in trouble.

 The last four digits of the Swiss clinic's 800 phone number are 5433
-- LIFE.  When you call, an operator picks up a telephone in an office
on Griffin Road in Davie and answers, "Life Extension."

> >>For now, Dr. Lemler said, people prefer storing heads over bodies by a
> ratio of about 2 to 1. He declined to provide specific numbers. One
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 04:54 GMT
>>What would you call a laboratory where dogs are frozen alive to further
research for ALCOR, the cryonics facility that stores the HEADS of
people who believe they are going to be rescusitated back to life
sometimes in the future? Steve Harris calls it his.<<

COMMENT:

Now, now. We don't freeze dogs. Well, hardly ever. And if we ever
managed to freeze one "alive" that would be quite a thing, wouldn't it?
They sort of have to be dead by definition, or else cryonics wouldn't
be so crazy after all.

The rest of what you're reprinted is a wonderful example of yellow
journalism. Many odd accusations. Down south here we have the funny
idea that people are innocent until found guilty. In newspapers they
seem to be guilty when charged. Except that NO charge against all these
people save one ever made it to trial. It all had to be dropped because
it was a lot of fantasy fueled by the Drug War. Yes, one guy who Kent
and Faloon once rented building space from (Ruddel) was a major coke
addict, and was later caught with a lot of cocaine. *He* did do some
time, but that's not very exciting. Other than Ruddel, though, what you
won't find in the papers that this was a dry hole. There were no plea
bargains, no convictions, no fines. Nada. Just smear, guilt by
association, and trial by press. The newspapers tried very hard to
convict, but there's only so much a tabloid story can do.

After it was all over the Feds and the papers didn't apologize, though.
They never do.

SBH
outrider - 28 Jun 2005 05:25 GMT
> >>What would you call a laboratory where dogs are frozen alive to further
> research for ALCOR, the cryonics facility that stores the HEADS of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> They sort of have to be dead by definition, or else cryonics wouldn't
> be so crazy after all.

"Worse still, I've frozen my share of dogs"
Steve Harris
ASM 1997

"A common misconception is that cryonics freezes the dead."
Ralph Merkle
Ralph Merkle website

> The rest of what you're reprinted is a wonderful example of yellow
> journalism. Many odd accusations. Down south here we have the funny
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 15:52 GMT
Keep going. You're actually starting to understand cryonics better than
you do indian relations in Canada. LOL.

SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 16:35 GMT
Boffins create zombie dogs
By Nick Buchan of NEWS.com.au
June 27, 2005

Eerie ... boffins have brought dead dogs back to life, in the name of
science.

SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines
after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended
animation for humans.

US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of
clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.

Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a
technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with
an ice-cold salt solution.

The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing
and have no heartbeat or brain activity.

But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are
brought back to life with an electric shock.

Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year,
according to the Safar Centre.

However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing
them back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would
be happy to keep people in this state for just a few hours,

But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield
casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have
suffered huge blood loss.

During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few
degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C,
compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before
death.

Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are
perfectly preserved.

Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The
dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their
bodies,giving them 100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to
restart their hearts.

Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.

"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to
prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology,"
said one US battlefield doctor.

-----------------------------------------------------

About Dr. Safar:
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20020331safar0331fnp2.asp

Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research -- http://www.safar.pitt.edu/
Kurt Ullman - 28 Jun 2005 19:11 GMT
>US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of
>clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
>
>Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a
>technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with
>an ice-cold salt solution.

    Pupsicles...

Kurt (Sorry I held out as long as I could) Ullman

--------------------------------------------------------
    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts--for support rather than illumination."
    Andrew Lang
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 20:59 GMT
>>Pupsicles...
Kurt (Sorry I held out as long as I could) Ullman <<

COMMENT:

If you like the work it's cold dogs with relish.

SBH
Terri - 29 Jun 2005 13:54 GMT
> Boffins create zombie dogs
> By Nick Buchan of NEWS.com.au
> June 27, 2005

For another version of this story see:

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_348517.html

Setting aside moral issues, I have a few logistical questions regarding
the utility of this process in the populations identified as potential
beneficiaries. How is the field medic on the battlefield going to
actually carry the required solutions and keep them at the correct
temperature? Even more worrisome, given that these are patients who have
exsanguinated, how will the field medic or the paramedic in civilian
life prevent the fluid from pouring out of the same holes that the
patient's blood poured out of? The medic can apply pressure to the
wound/wounds/ but that will only keep the blood from pouring out to the
outside. It won't do a damn thing to stop the internal bleeding of the
solution. I suppose when the body cavity or cavities are full the fluid
might remain in the blood vessels but now you have a different and very
serious problem. How many medics will you need on the battlefield to
make sure that all the mortally wounded who are bleeding to death are
given this potentially life saving 'treatment."

Quote from article:

"'As potentially crazy as this might sound, you're comparing it against
essentially certain death, so it's hard to see how we can do any worse,"
said Scalea, who attended the symposium at Pitt. "All of us are
incredibly energized by the thought of being able to do better.'"

This is the kind of thing that terrifies me, this belief in the medical
profession that dead is the worst thing that can happen to a
patient....it isn't. Sometimes living is.

> Eerie ... boffins have brought dead dogs back to life, in the name of
> science.
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research -- http://www.safar.pitt.edu/
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 23:00 GMT
Setting aside moral issues, I have a few logistical questions regarding

the utility of this process in the populations identified as potential
beneficiaries. How is the field medic on the battlefield going to
actually carry the required solutions and keep them at the correct
temperature?

COMMENT:
Well, obviously not on a medic's back, though some people who know
little about what medics actually carry first thought so.  Safar's
group did some DOD work with a couple of liters of chilled saline. It
wasn't that impressive.

It's obviously a difficult problem to carry "cold". You need insulation
and heat-exchange material and fluid. Just which ones is a technical
problem into which quite a lot of thought has gone. Suffice to say it's
possible, but it requires at least half the body weight of the wounded
soldier. And this requires a powered vehicle with electrical power, for
transport.  Still, such things do inhabit many modern battlefields.

>>Even more worrisome, given that these are patients who have
exsanguinated, how will the field medic or the paramedic in civilian
life prevent the fluid from pouring out of the same holes that the
patient's blood poured out of? The medic can apply pressure to the
wound/wounds/ but that will only keep the blood from pouring out to the

outside. It won't do a damn thing to stop the internal bleeding of the
solution. I suppose when the body cavity or cavities are full the fluid

might remain in the blood vessels but now you have a different and very

serious problem. How many medics will you need on the battlefield to
make sure that all the mortally wounded who are bleeding to death are
given this potentially life saving 'treatment." <<

COMMENT:
That's the rub indeed. All this technology makes more sense for heart
attack victims than soldiers. However, the DOD has more money than the
NIH right now, and you dance with the fella what brung ya.

Combat use isn't COMPLETELY crazy. It seems possible that there is a
class of internal slow-leakers or peripheral gushers who could be
patched up enough to use this technique, but not enough to save
otherwise. For hypothermia you don't need large amounts of cold blood,
just large amounts of cold fluid, which may be available. Part of the
charm of hypothermia is that once you get to near-ice temp (as we know
from dog experiments), you can go several hours without blood pressure
at ALL, which means you don't have to patch up remaining leaks after
that, until you get to a terminal treatment surgical center, perhaps
far away from the battle-site. Most shock/trauma battle victims die in
the first hour, and that's about how long it takes to get to them with
a helicopter. If you could do 3 hours, it would make a major
difference. So the bottom line is that if you can put in ice cold fluid
as fast as it leaks out for an hour, after that you can just "box and
go" and you would need no more personnel for transport of such a
"suspended" casualty, than you would any transplant organ "on ice." As
to how many medic vehicles "in the field"  it would take to have this
kind of thing available, nobody knows. I'm not defending the military
shock-trauma program, please remember. A civilian hypothermia
shock-trauma one with nobody shooting at you, would be hard enough.

The easiest target for hypothermia is extending non-braindamage arrest
time in heart attack or drowning from 5 to 15 minutes, which would make
a big difference in how many people could be rescued by paramedics in
big cities. This could also be done by post-resuscitation cooling, but
some of it might need to be done in the field.

>> Quote from article: 'As potentially crazy as this might sound, you're comparing it against essentially certain death, so it's hard to see how we can do any worse,"
said Scalea, who attended the symposium at Pitt. "All of us are
incredibly energized by the thought of being able to do better.'"
This is the kind of thing that terrifies me, this belief in the medical

profession that dead is the worst thing that can happen to a
patient....it isn't. Sometimes living is. <<

COMMENT:
Indeed, but you haven't thought it out.  Without good resuscitation
we've already seen examples of what such living is like, in Terry
Schiavo and before her, Karen Ann Quinlan. They didn't get that way
because somebody put them into hypothermia. They got that way because
somebody DIDN'T.  The most horrible thing that can happen to you,
already happens to many people NOW.

Will hypothermia cut the number of Schiavos?  Frankly, no, probably
not. But it won't increase it either. It will stay just the same. The
people who would have been Schiavos at 10 minutes will instead be fine,
and the Schiavos will come from the group at 20 or 25 mintues, who
would otherwise have been brain-dead, and thus quickly pronounced.  The
total effect, however, will be to move some people from the class of
"dead" to the class of "Resuscitated and well."  Without changing much
the number of people in the gray zone between that is so horrifying to
most. The way to get out of that class is to have a good living will.
Technology won't change the fact of it much, or the number of people in
it much. What it will do, is give more people back their full and
complete lives, and that's worth doing.

SBH
terrisk@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2005 16:04 GMT
> >>For now, Dr. Lemler said, people prefer storing heads over bodies by a
> ratio of about 2 to 1. He declined to provide specific numbers. One
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> SBH

Do you suppose this visceral revulsion might have evolved/been
hardwired into primates as some kind of protective mechanism as in, if
you're in a place where there are body parts lying around it's probably
a really good idea to get the hell out of there?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 16:28 GMT
>>Do you suppose this visceral revulsion might have evolved/been
hardwired into primates as some kind of protective mechanism as in, if
you're in a place where there are body parts lying around it's probably

a really good idea to get the hell out of there? <<

COMMENT:

Absolutely.
outrider - 28 Jun 2005 18:43 GMT
> >>Do you suppose this visceral revulsion might have evolved/been
> hardwired into primates as some kind of protective mechanism as in, if
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Absolutely.

Do you suppose people who lack this have something gone wrong?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 28 Jun 2005 20:55 GMT
>>Do you suppose people who lack this have something gone wrong?

COMMENT:

Ask a trauma surgeon, calmly up to her elbows in blood, or a forensic
pathologist picking apart a maggoty body, right after lunch. Or the
biologist who's learned to love tarantulas. The nice thing about being
human is you don't have to be slave to your genes.
outrider - 28 Jun 2005 22:21 GMT
When will we see you overcome yours?

Zee
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 01:27 GMT
Oh Slave of Leftist Political Correctness, how would you know if I had?

Do you really think the US is ruled by atheist libertarian
body-freezers?  Or that there's anything in anybody's genes that gives
them that tendency?  Lol.

SBH
outrider - 29 Jun 2005 03:19 GMT
Amazing that a small almost 63 year old Native Canadian woman can get
you so unhinged that all you can manage is one cheap personal shot
after another.

Zee
Terri - 28 Jun 2005 23:03 GMT
> >>Do you suppose people who lack this have something gone wrong?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> biologist who's learned to love tarantulas. The nice thing about being
> human is you don't have to be slave to your genes.

So it's your contention that the kinds of procedures used in cryonics
are not different in any way from ordinary medical procedures including
autopsy? I beg to differ....and spare me the "provincial" label. Some
things are unthinkable to people of normal human sensibilities.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 01:21 GMT
>>So it's your contention that the kinds of procedures used in cryonics
are not different in any way from ordinary medical procedures including

autopsy? I beg to differ....and spare me the "provincial" label. Some
things are unthinkable to people of normal human sensibilities. <<

COMMENT:

You mean like Dr. Bass's place called "the body farm"?  Google it.

And yes, you're being provincial. There are no pretty alternatives in
death. Just ones you hide and don't look at closely, on purpose.

SBH
Terri - 29 Jun 2005 01:27 GMT
>>>So it's your contention that the kinds of procedures used in cryonics
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> SBH

What was Patrick Moynihan's deathless phrase, again? ....ah yes,
"defining deviancy down..."
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 03:44 GMT
>>What was Patrick Moynihan's deathless phrase, again? ....ah yes,
"defining deviancy down..." <<

COMMENT:

And an Irish-Armerican Roman Catholic politician should know about
THAT, if anybody would. I think Patrick was slapped by one too many
nuns.

SBH
Terri - 29 Jun 2005 11:59 GMT
>>>What was Patrick Moynihan's deathless phrase, again? ....ah yes,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> SBH

Ad hominem attacks are the province of the individual who has no
rational arguments. Ad hominem attacks that single out a race or
religion indicate prejudice, an irrational dislike of a group of certain
others based on ignorance. One would hardly expect such a sophisticated
cosmopolitan man such as yourself, one who has transcended his genetic
revulsion for dismemberment of the human body to harbor such irrational
truly provincial beliefs.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 22:03 GMT
>>Ad hominem attacks are the province of the individual who has no
rational arguments. Ad hominem attacks that single out a race or
religion indicate prejudice, an irrational dislike of a group of
certain
others based on ignorance. One would hardly expect such a sophisticated

cosmopolitan man such as yourself, one who has transcended his genetic
revulsion for dismemberment of the human body to harbor such irrational

truly provincial beliefs. <<

COMMENT:

I still harbor prejudice for the prejudiced.  Pontificating Roman
Catholic politicians (Moynihan counts) don't quite head my list there,
but they're on it.

Ad hominem, BTW, is fair game when it comes to politicians, because
they present their personalities to be judged as part of the deal.
Negative judgments are heat and they're in the kitchen.

As for Usenet, the only one making personal attacks here is you. I'm
here as a person, and you're not. The difference between you and me is
that I have taken responsiblity for my opinions and actions. You
haven't. I actually have more respect for Godhe than I do you and Pizza
Girl. What a pair of pathetic ghosts you are.

SBH
outrider - 29 Jun 2005 04:20 GMT
You are very clever in how to slide off to the acceptable. I think
ALCOR did get their public relations director. I can't speak for the
other poster, but for me...

It isn't death I am repulsed by. It is one who so willingly causes it.
Who perceives revulsion of it in others, and seeks to deflect that, not
in concern for anyone, or anything's feelings...but convenience, by
removing burrs from a cat's fur.

Zee
Terri - 29 Jun 2005 12:03 GMT
> You are very clever in how to slide off to the acceptable. I think
> ALCOR did get their public relations director. I can't speak for the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in concern for anyone, or anything's feelings...but convenience, by
> removing burrs from a cat's fur.

Nor am I repulsed by death - if you're alive it comes with the
territory. Like you, I'm revolted by someone who ignores social norms
and then claims himself to be superior because he isn't held back by
silly things like normal human morals. Where I come from we call such
people sociopaths...

> Zee
Happy Dog - 29 Jun 2005 22:16 GMT
>> You are very clever in how to slide off to the acceptable. I think
>> ALCOR did get their public relations director. I can't speak for the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nor am I repulsed by death - if you're alive it comes with the territory.

Death of what?  Things you eat?  Very bad people?  Things whose death
doesn't repluse, well, you.

> Like you, I'm revolted by someone who ignores social norms and then claims
> himself to be superior because he isn't held back by silly things like
> normal human morals. Where I come from we call such people sociopaths...

Unless you can narrowly define all "normal human morals" your criticism is
utterly meaningless.  If you're in charge of anything really improtant, be
prepared to get shoved out of the way when the real decisions need to be
made.

moo
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 29 Jun 2005 22:22 GMT
>>Nor am I repulsed by death - if you're alive it comes with the
territory. Like you, I'm revolted by someone who ignores social norms
and then claims himself to be superior because he isn't held back by
silly things like normal human morals. Where I come from we call such
people sociopaths... <<

COMMENT:

People at the forefront of research have been called worse. Few
advances in bioscience have come without somebody screaming and yelling
about Frankenstein. That's almost the way you know you're onto
something worth doing and truely new.

I just read an autobiographical book by Edwards and Steptoe, who took
the heat about "test tube babies" 35 years ago. People wailed and
yelled about ethics. They talked about Brave New World. They warned
about safety and malformed babies. The Roman Catholic church opined
that the marriage contact didn't include the right to reproduce, but
was only a  license for lawful sexual intercouse from which children
MIGHT result. And so on. Leon Kass of the National Academy of sciences
(yeah, the same one who's still here giving grief to cloners) was there
to oppose it, and to say that the procedure didn't really *cure*
anything, and the couples were still infertile, so it wasn't really
*therapeutic*. Yawn. Edwards merely pointed out that Kass should be
just as much against eyeglasses and dentures. We've had similar debates
right here on sci.med./

Today we know the Test Tube Baby procedure by a different name (IVF),
and in my state MediCal pays for it if you're too poor to afford it.
Even if you have 12 kids, and they're all on public assistance, as
would be the new ones.. It would be politically incorrect NOT to pay
for it. Reproductive assistance is a new human right, apparently, like
money for Viagra. That is how humans "progress."  Although, strangely,
the people initially against most forms of progress in medicine call
themselves "progressives."

SBH
Terri - 29 Jun 2005 22:44 GMT
>>>Nor am I repulsed by death - if you're alive it comes with the
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> yelled about ethics. They talked about Brave New World. They warned
> about safety and malformed babies.

Was there a population shortage? So many sterile people that the
population was in danger of dying out?

 The Roman Catholic church opined
> that the marriage contact didn't include the right to reproduce, but
> was only a  license for lawful sexual intercouse from which children
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> just as much against eyeglasses and dentures. We've had similar debates
> right here on sci.med./

Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the
quality of life of the person who needs glasses and dentures. Do you
really think that having children is a similar quality of life issue?

> Today we know the Test Tube Baby procedure by a different name (IVF),
> and in my state MediCal pays for it if you're too poor to afford it.
> Even if you have 12 kids, and they're all on public assistance, as
> would be the new ones.. It would be politically incorrect NOT to pay
> for it.

Would it? I don't think so unless you paid for it for some and not for
others. Then it would violate equal protection laws.

> Reproductive assistance is a new human right, apparently, like
> money for Viagra.

State funded viagra is about to become a thing of the past. Haven't you
heard?

> That is how humans "progress."  Although, strangely,
> the people initially against most forms of progress in medicine call
> themselves "progressives."

A great deal of what passes for progress in medicine serves no purpose
beyond enriching a few people.

> SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 30 Jun 2005 02:17 GMT
>>Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the
quality of life of the person who needs glasses and dentures. Do you
really think that having children is a similar quality of life issue?
<<

COMMENT:

For many people (of course not all), the answer is "absolutely." People
may suffer terribly if they want children and can't conceive. Geez,
what planet are you posting from?

> Today we know the Test Tube Baby procedure by a different name (IVF),
> and in my state MediCal pays for it if you're too poor to afford it.
> Even if you have 12 kids, and they're all on public assistance, as
> would be the new ones.. It would be politically incorrect NOT to pay
> for it.

>>Would it? I don't think so unless you paid for it for some and not for
others. Then it would violate equal protection laws. <<

COMMENT:
Indeed, but not all politically correct things are things that violate
equal protection laws. Equal protection doesn't require social
assistance at all, so long as nobody gets it.

>>State funded viagra is about to become a thing of the past. Haven't you heard? <<

COMMENT:
The lead-acid car battery is about to become a thing of the past.
Hadn't YOU heard?  I'll believe it when I see it.

>>A great deal of what passes for progress in medicine serves no purpose beyond enriching a few people. <<

COMMENT
That depends on what you mean by "great deal." Half? Three-quarters?
90%?  We have no examples of societies with long life spans and low
tech, to go on. They all have turned out to be myths.

SBH
Terri - 30 Jun 2005 03:21 GMT
>>>Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> may suffer terribly if they want children and can't conceive. Geez,
> what planet are you posting from?

Lots of people suffer terribly because their noses are too big, too
small, too crooked, women suffer terribly because their breasts are too
small, men suffer terribly because they are balding....do we pay for
those kinds of procedures? Life's not fair. Some people can't have
children. There are many children who need homes. Wouldn't it make a
whole lot more sense to bring people who want children but can't have
them together with childrten who need homes instead of performing an
expensive, sometimes risky medical procedure? Of course that would mean
that the lawyers get the money instead of the doctors and the medical
establishment....

>>Today we know the Test Tube Baby procedure by a different name (IVF),
>>and in my state MediCal pays for it if you're too poor to afford it.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> equal protection laws. Equal protection doesn't require social
> assistance at all, so long as nobody gets it.

Exactly. So you choose the procedures you cover very carefully and don't
cover procedures that have little or not social value and no medical
value at all.

>>>State funded viagra is about to become a thing of the past. Haven't you heard? <<
>
> COMMENT:
> The lead-acid car battery is about to become a thing of the past.
> Hadn't YOU heard?  I'll believe it when I see it.

I think the outcry over giving these drugs to sex offenders so they can
re-offend will push this one through the legislature.

>>>A great deal of what passes for progress in medicine serves no purpose beyond enriching a few people. <<
>
> COMMENT
> That depends on what you mean by "great deal." Half? Three-quarters?
> 90%?  We have no examples of societies with long life spans and low
> tech, to go on. They all have turned out to be myths.

Your assumption that a long life span is a good thing needs to be
examined first.

> SBH
Happy Dog - 30 Jun 2005 16:12 GMT
>>>>Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> men suffer terribly because they are balding....do we pay for those kinds
> of procedures? Life's not fair.

What do you suffer from, or expect to, that you think taxpayers should pay
to correct?  What procedures do you think your tax dollars should not pay
for?

> Some people can't have children. There are many children who need homes.
> Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to bring people who want children
> but can't have them together with childrten who need homes instead of
> performing an expensive, sometimes risky medical procedure?

Sure.  There's a glut of adoptable babies.  But nobody wants most of them.
Nobody wants almost any of them.  What do you suggest be done with both the
rich infertile couples and the starving babies?

>> Indeed, but not all politically correct things are things that violate
>> equal protection laws. Equal protection doesn't require social
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> cover procedures that have little or not social value and no medical value
> at all.

Social value and medical value are very different things.  And, I'll bet,
you aren't really whining against the things you feel have little medical
value.  Save to complain that the money could be better spet on something
you think you need or will.

>>>>State funded viagra is about to become a thing of the past. Haven't you
>>>>heard? <<
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I think the outcry over giving these drugs to sex offenders so they can
> re-offend will push this one through the legislature.

You are wrong.  You use the arguments they're using (spending on social
activism = a better world) for what you think is a different purpose.  But
it isn't.

>>>>A great deal of what passes for progress in medicine serves no purpose
>>>>beyond enriching a few people. <<
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Your assumption that a long life span is a good thing needs to be examined
> first.

I didn't see that assumption stated or implied.  Are you useless to both
yourself and others?  It wouldn't surprise me.

moo
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 30 Jun 2005 19:33 GMT
>>>Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the > quality of life of the person who needs glasses and dentures. Do you
> really think that having children is a similar quality of life issue?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> what planet are you posting from?
>>Lots of people suffer terribly because their noses are too big, too
small, too crooked, women suffer terribly because their breasts are too

small, men suffer terribly because they are balding....do we pay for
those kinds of procedures?  Life's not fair. <<

COMMENT:

Well, so long as we're being towers of compassion, you can make the
same remark about dysfunction of any organ system, so long as not
life-threatening.  Hey, life's not fair. Your hormones or your genes
might doom you to be four feet tall, but hey, you might be an otherwise
reasonably healthy four feet tall. Why should the state pay for growth
hormone for you?  Learn to sing "We represent the Lollypop Guild..."
Or the Lullabye League, as your sex dictates.

As for cosmetic surgery, medicaid varies in coverage. In many states
you can get cosmetic surgery to fix deformities resulting from trauma,
but not any that you're born with.  I don't know if they make
exceptions for cleft palate, but maybe not. You might suffer and
whistle a lot, but you'll survive. Bald people suffer also, as you
point out?  I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere, but it
escapes me why a lump or defect or malformation you're born with should
be any different than one you acquired from being run over by a car. Or
even from aging.

But we have gotten off on a tangent, with the state-funded procedures.
Originally the ethicists objected even to IVF for people who wanted to
pay for it out of pocket. The "ethicists" wanted to meddle, even there.
Or course, it being the UK that did this first, the "ethicists" could
hardly distinguish between private and social payment for medical
procedures. The distinction being nearly invisible to them
intellectually.

>>Some people can't have children. There are many children who need homes. Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to bring people who want children but can't have
them together with childrten who need homes instead of performing an
expensive, sometimes risky medical procedure?

COMMENT:

And there are people who don't make enough saliva, and people who make
too much. If we could only get them together they could be very happy.
Except for some prejudices.

COMMENT:
>>Of course that would mean that the lawyers get the money instead of the doctors and the medical establishment.... <<

Indeed, the other problem. These children "who need homes" are
protected by gaggles of people who want exorbitant ransoms for them,
while all the time they are aging uncared-for into unadoptable
unsocializability. This happens with humans exactly as with kittens.
And with humans as with kittens it seems to be a problem everywhere,
but it's not a MEDICAL problem. Your comment is like saying "Why do we
spend all that money to do brain surgery on people shot in the head
during gang fights or robberies, when it would be much better to teach
people not to be gangers or robbers?" Medicine must deal with what
rolls or walks through the door.

>>So you choose the procedures you cover very carefully and don't cover procedures that have little or not social value and no medical value at all. <<

God, are you another Canadian or Brit?  I can smell their socialism and
need to meddle democratically in other people's lives. It's like a bad
odor. The better answer, with most of medicine, and except for very
extreme cases and emergencies, is to allow people to choose *for
themselves* individually what has "social value" and "medical value."
Since this differs concept differs from person to person (a newsflash
for you). And to allow people to chose with their pocketbooks, if they
have any money at all.  Otherwise somebody else has to do it FOR them,
and your candidate for who makes those decisions would be...?  Do YOU
want the job?  Your local genius politicians?  The doctors?  No, you
really don't want any of those groups. I hope.

> That depends on what you mean by "great deal." Half? Three-quarters?
> 90%?  We have no examples of societies with long life spans and low
> tech, to go on. They all have turned out to be myths.
>>Your assumption that a long life span is a good thing needs to be examined first. <<

COMMENT:

Not for long. I know very well that long life is a marker for healthy
life, since it's very difficult to get unhealthy and ill people to live
long.  So the two go together, and cannot be separated.  Much as
utopians would like to.

As for the INTRINSIC value of long life, I will say what I always say
to deathists (people who argue for the goodness of early death), and
that is "You first, bub."

SBH
Terri - 30 Jun 2005 22:03 GMT
>>>>Why? Vision and teeth are useful things. They're pretty important to the > quality of life of the person who needs glasses and dentures. Do you
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> hormone for you?  Learn to sing "We represent the Lollypop Guild..."
> Or the Lullabye League, as your sex dictates.

Are people who are deficient in growth hormone healthy people? I don't
think so. OTOH if the only problem is that you're aren't going to be as
tall as you or your parents would like you tobe, you're talking about a
totally different set of people...

> As for cosmetic surgery, medicaid varies in coverage. In many states
> you can get cosmetic surgery to fix deformities resulting from trauma,
> but not any that you're born with.  I don't know if they make
> exceptions for cleft palate, but maybe not.

Actually cleft palate is always covered - being able to eat is viewed as
quite useful.

 You might suffer and
> whistle a lot, but you'll survive. Bald people suffer also, as you
> point out?  I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere, but it
> escapes me why a lump or defect or malformation you're born with should
> be any different than one you acquired from being run over by a car. Or
> even from aging.

I'm sure it does escape you. One has to have some kind of moral sense to
be able to understand the difference between paying for facelift for a
50 year old woman who wants to look 20 or fixing a cleft palate because
the kid can't eat or speak properly....

> But we have gotten off on a tangent, with the state-funded procedures.
> Originally the ethicists objected even to IVF for people who wanted to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> procedures. The distinction being nearly invisible to them
> intellectually.

Do you suppose some people might be infertile because of their genes -
that the biological children of such people might be carriers of really
awful genetic diseases?

>>>Some people can't have children. There are many children who need homes. Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to bring people who want children but can't have
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> people not to be gangers or robbers?" Medicine must deal with what
> rolls or walks through the door.

This statement is too off the wall to bother with even if I were
inclined to continue this conversation...

>>>So you choose the procedures you cover very carefully and don't cover procedures that have little or not social value and no medical value at all. <<
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> want the job?  Your local genius politicians?  The doctors?  No, you
> really don't want any of those groups. I hope.

Once again, I have this problem dealing with people who have no concept
of public good as opposed to individual wants. But then I'm an adult not
a toddler who is still dominated by "I wants..."

>>That depends on what you mean by "great deal." Half? Three-quarters?
>>90%?  We have no examples of societies with long life spans and low
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> long.  So the two go together, and cannot be separated.  Much as
> utopians would like to.

You really should read a bit more history. You'd see just how wrong you are.

> As for the INTRINSIC value of long life, I will say what I always say
> to deathists (people who argue for the goodness of early death), and
> that is "You first, bub."

> SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 01 Jul 2005 01:59 GMT
>>Are people who are deficient in growth hormone healthy people? I don't
think so.<<

COMMENT:
It depends on how you define "healthy."  Sometimes they are
clinically healthy except for being short.

>> OTOH if the only problem is that you're aren't going to be as
tall as you or your parents would like you to be, you're talking
about a
totally different set of people... <<

COMMENT:
But again one which might be stretched with enough growth hormone
(there is controversy over this, but I think the existence of giantism
with early acromegally pretty much puts the end to the argument, and
also a recent NIH randomized trial was positive).
Again the question is why regard a boy who's going to be 5 feet tall
because his parents are, differently than a boy who's going to be 5
feet tall because he's got some pathology you can identify?  Both are
going to wind up with the same social problems of a 5 foot tall man.
Why would you want to want to let this happen if you can fix it? Why is
being 5 feet tall a "disease" if it's associated with a funny lab
number, and being 5 feet tall is not a "disease," if it isn't
(maybe the right lab test just hasn't been developed yet, and when it
is you'll find the whole family has funny labs)?  Will the normal
labs be any comfort to the 5 ft tall man?  The 4 foot tall man? Perhaps
you don't see the point. I happen to believe you should fix clinical
problems in medicine, and not just treat lab numbers.  Both "genetic
defects" and "diseases" are elastic terms, and often don't
really have any natural backing in science. All you're really left
with in medicine, is what makes people suffer or what gives them joy.

>As for cosmetic surgery, medicaid varies in coverage. In many states
> you can get cosmetic surgery to fix deformities resulting from trauma,
> but not any that you're born with.  I don't know if they make
> exceptions for cleft palate, but maybe not.

Actually cleft palate is always covered - being able to eat is viewed
as
quite useful.

COMMENT:
Here's another fuzzy case. Not all cleft palate conditions (and
there's a wide range) preclude eating. If they did, you wouldn't
have any untreated cases in adults in undeveloped countries where
surgery isn't available, because none would survive. Whereas of
course you do see such cases. At some level of defect, this IS
"merely" a "cosmetic" problem.  As are a variety of pediatric
defects which result in facial deformities.

Which is why I wrote:
>You might suffer and
> whistle a lot, but you'll survive. Bald people suffer also, as you
> point out?  I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere, but it
> escapes me why a lump or defect or malformation you're born with should
> be any different than one you acquired from being run over by a car. Or
> even from aging.

And you said:
>>I'm sure it does escape you. One has to have some kind of moral sense to
be able to understand the difference between paying for facelift for a
50 year old woman who wants to look 20 or fixing a cleft palate because

the kid can't eat or speak properly.... <<

COMMENT:
Well, obviously it requires "moral sense" to tell if a child is doing
something "properly." My goodness, yes. No doubt if it's
surgically fixable, he's not doing it "properly." But if not,
then he's a special child with special eating and speaking
characteristics, and who are we then to say what's "proper", eh?
Should we keep emphasizing that it's improper?  The old elastic sense
of propriety, making a virtue of necessity.

I noticed you sidestepped my question about plastic reconstruction of
traumatic problems vs. congenital ones.

Ah, the unfortunate woman who wants her face lifted because it fell
during aging, comes in for scorn. But what about the woman who wants
her bladder lifted, or her uterus lifted? At what point (how many
centimeters) does uterine prolapse stop being a matter of "vanity"?
After all, who else will know, so long as you can still walk?  At how
many minutes or mmHg of pressure does ability to successfully hold
urine stop being "pathology"?  There are slippery slopes (if you
like) at each case.   And life is not fair, as you pointed out.

>>Do you suppose some people might be infertile because of their genes -
that the biological children of such people might be carriers of really

awful genetic diseases? <<

COMMENT:
Possibly in some cases, but mostly the answer (which we know from IVF)
is "no."  Ahem, were you about to attack the right of people to
breed and pass on "genetic diseases"?  Or just the "really
awful" ones?  As defined by...?

>>This statement is too off the wall to bother with even if I were
inclined to continue this conversation... <<\

COMMENT: Hey, it's your nickel.

>>Once again, I have this problem dealing with people who have no concept
of public good as opposed to individual wants. But then I'm an adult
not
a toddler who is still dominated by "I wants..." <<

And I've got a newsflash for you--- you can't escape being driven by
your wants.  They simply change in normal adulthood to being less
self-centered. But a parental or altruistic desire is a desire, for all
of that.

I'm tired of socialists who think they can distinguish "needs" from
"wants." Especially vicariously. MY children need football practice and
violin lessons for their social development. I'm almost sure of it. I'm
not so sure about the stuff *your* children merely *want.* They seem to
me spoiled little wretches.....

Mrs. Jones has got hip arthritis. She wants a hip replacement, but does
she really NEED one yet?  We ask ourselves.

The insufferable paternalism of this is..... Canadian. Now, in deciding
how much Ms. Jones needs to suffer, we treat adults as if they were all
toddlers, whining for that which is not worth having, UNLESS we agree
with them (never mind that we don't share their pain).

Of course, some older adults ARE toddlers. Especially if the hips or
prolapse gets "really awful."  And not just sort of awful.

BTW, the argument that these "needs" can be separated from "wants"
becomes especially funny coming from somebody arguing for *quality* of
life vs. mere length of it.  Are you aware of the irony?

>>>Your assumption that a long life span is a good thing needs to be examined first. <<
> COMMENT:
Not for long. I know very well that long life is a marker for healthy
> life, since it's very difficult to get unhealthy and ill people to live
> long.  So the two go together, and cannot be separated.  Much as
> utopians would like to.
>>You really should read a bit more history. You'd see just how wrong you are.

COMMENT:

You're going to use *history* to find me unhealthy long-lived
populations??  This (bizarre) question is one for medical epidemiology,
not history. You haven't even got your field right.

But do feel free to teach some geriatrics and gerontology. I'm
naturally interested.

SBH
outrider - 01 Jul 2005 05:20 GMT
> >>Are people who are deficient in growth hormone healthy people? I don't
> think so.<<
[quoted text clipped - 148 lines]
>
> SBH

Irony: a sociopath who, maybe, if we follow his logic, we can get
fixed; repaired. Perhaps we can freeze his head and hope eventually
medical science will have an answer for such ethical dwarism. At best
we can hope he doesn't breed.
Terri - 01 Jul 2005 14:02 GMT
>>>Are people who are deficient in growth hormone healthy people? I don't
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> really have any natural backing in science. All you're really left
> with in medicine, is what makes people suffer or what gives them joy.

Ah yes, happiness is to be found at a doctor's office....

>>As for cosmetic surgery, medicaid varies in coverage. In many states
>>you can get cosmetic surgery to fix deformities resulting from trauma,
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> Well, obviously it requires "moral sense" to tell if a child is doing
> something "properly."

It's actually quite easy to see if an infant is able to eat properly
(this word has very strange cononations in what passes for English in
the US - it somehow implies manners another foreign concept to many
Americans) as in s/he can is able to suck and swallow without having the
milk come back out his/her nose. Nothing moral about it - just a simple
observation. It's also not difficult to hear whether or not s/he can
speak properly in his/her native language. Speech is also rather
important. OTOH if the ability to eat and speak aren't affected I'm not
quite sure why you'd bother to fix a cleft palate.

> My goodness, yes. No doubt if it's
> surgically fixable, he's not doing it "properly." But if not,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> urine stop being "pathology"?  There are slippery slopes (if you
> like) at each case.
Most of these cases are the result of (mistaken) medical interventions
during delivery and in the case of stress incontinence, the use of post
menopausal hormones, doctors should learn to keep their hands off in the
first place. It's certainly incumbant upon them to fix the problems they
created.

  And life is not fair, as you pointed out.

>>>Do you suppose some people might be infertile because of their genes -
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Possibly in some cases, but mostly the answer (which we know from IVF)
> is "no."  

We know nothing of the kind and we won't until several generations have
passed and there are enough of such children around that they begin to
reproduce with each other. And then there's the issue of first checking
and implanting only "normal" embryos, selectively and  then aborting
those that turn out to be not normal after all. In short you've already
stacked the deck and you still have no idea of the long term c