Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005
of plague dogs and cryonics
|
|
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
|
|