X-Message-Number: 15435 From: "Jeff Grimes" <> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:38:31 -0700 Subject: Grimes in Wonderland Oh dear oh dear. Either I am the world's worst writer at expressing myself, or Mr. Ettinger is the world's expert at rephrasing people so that they don't say what they thought they said. His quote: "First, on the general question of whether CI's web site is too self-serving and doesn't offer enough exposure to the views of others, Alcor especially, as Mr. Grimes seems to think. Obviously, any house organ is going to feature most prominently its own views, and we need not apologize for that. But the information is always factual, to the best of our knowledge" Fine! But NONE of this was what I said. I said CI makes claims about OTHER organizations which seem to be totally wrong, damaging, and not backed by any references. I asked for the sources to support these damaging claims. In response I get no sources, and no retraction of the claims that seem to be simply outrageously wrong. Instead Mr. E. now refers me to the Alcor web site. But Alcor certainly never said that its own vitrification procedures are more toxic and damaging than anything used by CI! So once again I ask Mr E, what was your source? Did you telephone anyone and check with them before the text went on the CI web site, accusing your competitors of malpractice? This debate, if that's the word, will go nowhere if I don't get a straight answer to any questions. "I have already said that we will soon add to the site a new summary of the current procedure in a form that will be detailed enough to satisfy any reasonable demand" Actually you didn't say that, you just told me to go and look at the CI web site for more information. Then I complained that the information isn't there. Now you say it will be there, but you don't say when. Why not give me the information right here? It would only take three or four paras, which is a fraction of what you have been writing. "Next, Mr. Grimes asks about differences between the sheep head procedures and those with human patients. There are no differences in principle, although of course with human patients it is always necessary to make adjustments for the specific conditions. The new summary will mention some of those variables." No difference in principle, but actually there is some difference in practice, and "the new summary" is now going to have all the answers. Normally I see answers like this in Question Time in the House of Commons. Previously "Check the CI web page" was supposed to be the source for all the answers. Now "the new summary" is going to tell all. But I'm beginning to wonder if Mr. E. actually knows the answers, himself. If he did, it would take him much less time just to TELL ME right here instead of writing these long messages that never really get to the point. "What does remain true, however, is that the details have very limited relevance, for the reason I mentioned. If someone thinks some aspect of the procedure would be better if it were different, what can he do?" Well, the person looking for information could decide to go to a different organization! So long as we don't really know how people are treated at one place or another, we can't make an informed choice. The idea that medical details "have little relevance" is just nutty. If I asked a doctor whether he's going to cure my cancer with radiation or chemo, and he said, "Oh, don't worry about those medical details, they will be on our web site soon," I would not be very reassured. Would you? "And I remind readers that it is generally better to couch comments/criticisms in objective terms, without the use of pejoratives or imputation of bad motives. We try to write and respond objectively, but when there are personal attacks it is not always possible or even tactically correct to keep our responses impersonal." Mr. E uses "we" as if he is royalty? Well, I apologize for causing offense, as a "commoner." The only snag is, I didn't make any personal attacks. I just ASKED QUESTIONS. On the other hand, Mr. E suggested that I was just a malicious critic with no serious interest in the answers. I took THAT pretty personally. I'm beginning to think there's a double standard here. In his gentlemanly way Mr. E slags off other organizations in the most amazing fashion, basically accusing them of poisoning people while they try to cover up what they're really doing. Really! And then if someone says, "Okay, how does your organization do it?" he takes offense and accuses me of getting personal! "On our Compare page are examples of what we don't do, and why. For instance, we don't drill holes in the skulls of patients, as I believe Alcor does. They do it to monitor edema. Fine--but we never get edema; on the contrary, we invariably get shrinkage." Well, that's very nice. Alcor not only poisons people it drills holes in their heads. Anything else we need to add, here? Does Bela Lugosi work for Alcor? Is the board of directors full of convicted criminals?! I mean, come on, I'm trying to get info about CI, I don't need all this demonization of competitors. But all I get about CI are these tantalizing generalities, like "Oh we never get edema." But no explanation how or why. Edema if you look it up is swelling, right? So here's a person having chemicals pumped through him. You might expect swelling would happen if the circulatory system has some blockages, which you might expect to occur if a person took a while to reach CI after death, because his blood would be clotting. But, noooo, this NEVER happens, thanks to the magical procedures which will be posted on CI real soon now. We thought they were already there, but, hey, someone actually went and took a look, and now CI has to admit the details weren't there after all. Am I supposed to believe any of this? "As for us, we will continue to do the research we think most promising within our resources, and to hire unbiased professionals to do the evaluations, and will report as appropriate." Oh well that's all right then. But it's sort of like a Politburo press release. "Don't worry, those in authority will be following appropriate procedures using experts, and we'll tell you about it when you need to know." What procedures, what experts, what time? "Don't worry about it, you don't need to know." Well, personally I do need to know, and I don't like being fobbed off like this. I suggest again it is possible that Mr. E is not actually informed of what's being done, and maybe he is too proud to admit it. I'm only guessing and I hope I am wrong. But I can't think of any other explanation for all these evasions. Now as for George Smith saying "it's all on the web site," I already pointed out that it isn't, and Mr. E. has now admitted that it isn't. So I hope George can now agree that it isn't. Incidentally George sent me personal email yesterday, betting me that Mr. E. would have answers to all my questions today. Unfortunately George didn't give me enough time to accept the bet and put money on it. Shrewd move, there, George! Can we make a new bet, a week in advance this time? I may not be online for the next three days but when I return I will be looking with interest to see if any specific info has turned up. I won't hold my breath. Jeff Grimes. Get your free E-mail at http://www.zdnet.co.uk/mail/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15435