X-Message-Number: 15485
From: 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:06:25 EST
Subject: more Grimes

Some comments re Grimes, #15473 & preceding:

1. He claims to have been more polite than I have. Amazing! I leave it to the 
reader to judge.

2. When he asked for the delay times for the last four CI patients, I only 
responded with information about the last three, because that was what I 
remembered clearly. (Two died at home under hospice care and were processed 
immediately; one was not found for more than a day.) If that isn't enough, 
tough. I can write fast, but I can't access archives fast, and I will not go 
to endless trouble at his behest, especially when he has gone out of his way 
to be obnoxious. 

3. He writes:

> I have no idea why Mr. Ettinger finds it "incredible" that some people 
might be >revived, while others are not. Has he heard of the principle of 
triage (used in every >emergency room)? His incredulity just confirms my 
previous statement: That he >seems to feel he "deserves" to be revived.

And I repeat, he shows an incredible lack of understanding of cryonics and 
cryonics organizations. Triage has nothing to do with it, and "deserve" has 
nothing to do with it. We want to save our lives and those of the people we 
love, and the organization has the legal and moral obligation to do its best 
to that end, and that is the whole of it.

4. Does lack of equilibration mean that glycerol is unevenly distributed in 
the tissues of our experimental animals and patients? That is a reasonable 
suspicion, but actual findings (specimens from different sites in the brain) 
do not indicate that. 

In any case, we have now changed over to a 4-stage stepped glycerol 
procedure, which will be outlined on our web site soon, replacing our current 
segment on Phases of Suspension.

5. He writes:

> I have just asked questions, not so different from questions which a 
patient would >ask of a doctor, if the patient was facing a medical procedure.

Stuff and nonsense. Patients rarely ask doctors about technical details, only 
things like will it hurt and how long will it take and what will it cost and 
how long will I be laid up and what are my chances--especially the last, if 
the situation is life-threatening. It is the RESULTS that count, and our 
results have been evaluated by independent professionals. 

6. He writes:

>R.E. wrote: "As for Grimes, however--Alcor is welcome to him."

>Why on earth would CI try to get rid of someone who simply wants to know how 
>things work?

I have not said we would turn him down, but it ought to be obvious why I 
would not be eager to sign up someone like this. Look at the history of other 
organizations. Alcor had endless internal bickering, because of the 
personalities of some of its people, and there was a major schism resulting 
in the formation of another organization, CryoCare. Trans Time and the Bay 
Area Cryonics Society (now American Cryonics Society) had serious squabbles, 
and the initial cooperation between BACS and TT broke down. There were 
serious squabbles involving CryoSpan and related organizations or companies, 
and CryoSpan appears about to fold. 

The fact that CI has had a much more stable history does NOT mean that our 
directors rubber-stamp my opinions. Our directors think for themselves, and I 
have been overruled more than once, in fact frequently. But our people 
generally do not have inflated egos or sand-paper personalities, and we don't 
need that. 

7. In #15474 he asks:

> Do other organizations use the glycerol before the person is moved to the 
cryo lab, or is this a feature which is unique to CI?

Yes, CPA perfusion by funeral directors is unique to CI. Except in rare 
cases, it must be arranged well ahead of time. 

8. He writes:

> After you wash out the blood, it would be easy enough to use a standard 
organ >cryopreservation solution,

There isn't any "standard organ cryopreservation solution"--organs for 
transplant are not cryopreserved. Anyway, washout and perfusion are done in 
the same operation, in sequence, so there is no place for an intermediate use 
of Viaspan or something similar.

9. In an earlier post he wrote:

>Personally I am not very interested in Alcor since they have no presence in 
the UK anymore (or so I have been told). 

Remarkable! In view of his remarks, he ought to be VERY interested in 
Alcor--surely interested enough to send them an email for direct information 
on their UK presence and capabilities. He has time to write endless 
criticisms of CI for Cryonet, but can't find out from Alcor, or its web site, 
whether Alcor can service him? Please!

10. He writes:

> [I want] SHORT SIMPLE ANSWERS TO SHORT SIMPLE QUESTIONS

Baloney. Every answer to him will only elicit argumentation and demands for 
more and more details. One purpose of our web site is to allow inquirers to 
find what they need without separate individual correspondence.

We do indeed welcome questions and suggestions. But we respond as seems 
appropriate, using our own judgment, not necessarily as the writer demands. 

In the course of the go-rounds of the last month or so, in a very few cases 
it has been shown that some of our web segments led to misunderstandings. 
These have been changed, or are in the process. Also, as I said, new segments 
are upcoming. We will always correct any errors that can be demonstrated, and 
we will remedy any inadequacies, according to our best judgment. On the 
whole, I think most readers will agree that our site is the most open and 
informative of all.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15485