X-Message-Number: 15177
From: "Brent Fox" <>
Subject: Re: Charles Platt's Soapbox Diatribe #15168
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:07:42 -0800

>Message #15168
>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:58:57 -0500 (EST)
>From: Charles Platt <>
>Subject: Lack of Communications
>
>I decided to resample CryoNet after an absence of 10 months. Some
>observations, and a warning, are listed below.
>
>1. The State of the List.
>
>To a relative outsider, this list appears to be the product of a
>special-interest group that has long since passed its prime and is now in
>a moribund phase. Seemingly there is nothing newsworthy happening among
>them, since they have virtually no news to report (at least, not about
>their special interest). Long-standing irreconcilable quarrels drag on
>literally for years (the Ettinger hobby horse about "self circuits" is a
>classic case). Hypothetical arguments are a favorite, punctuated by
>occasional pointless speculation (such as the recent thread about storing
>bodies in space, under the apparent delusion that this could solve more
>problems than it creates--something that anyone with any shred of
>commonsense would find ludicrous).

Well Charles, if the gamble of cryonics pays off, then a lot of the
"hypothetical arguments", and "pointless speculation" may be VERY relevant.
But, I guess you consulted your crystal ball and saw that all this
discussion is pointless.  That's very kind of you.     You only get out of
something, what you put into it.  You say it's been 10 months since you've
been here.....  You haven't posted much, huh?

>To be fair, there has been reference to recent "research" financed by CI,
>but anyone who reads the relevant web site will find a paucity of
>fundamental data to evaluate the claims. While implicitly suggesting that
>professional cryobiologists are incompetent, the page shows an insulting
>disregard for the proper documentation of lab work--procedures which I
>learned in high school.


Snip

I'm not familiar with the CI research.   You do have a point though,
concerning the lack of info from Cryonic Services providers.  What about the
vitrification techniques that Alcor has proposed?  I've not seen much
details concerning it, nor about Alcor's plans to do all neurosuspensions in
this matter.   There's not been much discussion about that.

>2. A Sample Omission: The Recent Alcor Case


SNIP

>Second, this case raised an issue about the movement of whole-body
>patients from California to Arizona. I have been told by several people
>that the patient (who had been pronounced legally dead on a Saturday
>morning) could not be moved for two days because of lack of appropriate
>paperwork, which could not be completed until the following Monday. This
>prohibition turned out not to apply to neuro cases, according to my
>sources; but there are members in California who are adamantly opposed to
>the neuroseparation procedure. Perhaps someone should tell them about this
>supposed regulation that would force them to remain in-state over the
>weekend if they happen to die on the wrong day? Personally I am extremely
>puzzled by this alleged situation, since when I supervised a case in New
>York where the patient died on a Friday, she was flown to California on
>the Saturday without any problem.

Would this not have jepordized the quality of suspension that the person
recieved?!  The truth of this matter should come out, so that a similar
situation can be avoided.  The Alcor management should investigate this
issue, and report their findings.   I agree with you (again) on this point.

>3. Lack of News Media


Snip

Once again I agree.  When an agency releases little information, it leaves a
wide berth for speculation, and the possibility for deception.


Brent

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15177