X-Message-Number: 15496
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:14:05 -0500
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: Results - CryoNet #15472
References: <>

> Message #15472
> From: 
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:46:16 EST
> Subject: Results
> 
> Wakfer's #15469 mostly requires and deserves no comment, but the following is
> so exceedingly odd that I draw attention to it. He writes in part:
> 
>  >The first requirement of any scientific report is sufficient detail that
> the experiment >can be fully repeated (ie every important measurement will be
> reproduced) by
> >anyone who wishes to do so. This requirement has the same weight of
> >importance whether or not anyone is actually expected to repeat the
> >work. Until such detail is forthcoming, it is premature to consider (and
> >certainly to report) either the validity or the falsity of any
> >"results".
> 
> When a layman chooses (say) a hospital for a bypass operation,

This is irrelevant to my point because scientific reports written for
publication are for scientists not laymen, and medical practice at
hospitals is not remotely equivalent to scientific research. Mr Ettinger
seems not to understand the difference between publication of
experimental research, promotion of science to laymen, and promotion of
professional practice. It is now clear that CI's reports have never been
intended to be scientific reports. From previous remarks by Mr Ettinger:

>It seems pretty clear that newcomers, by and large, find our disclosures and 
>explanations satisfactory. People tend to "vote with their feet," and CI 
>growth has been faster than anyone else's in the last couple of years. No 
>amount of fulminating on Cryonet can change that.

perhaps the CI reports are instead merely marketing articles intended to
win the votes of the uninformed. 

> he doesn't and
> can't compare details of equipment and practice, and from his point of view
> any reports in medical journals, or any disputes in medical journals, are of
> little or no importance. What he can do is look at survival statistics--that
> is the bottom line. (Even that is not so simple, because some hospitals get
> harder cases on average; but it is still the relevant survival numbers that
> count.)

As stated above this is all totally irrelevant to the issue of the
proper documentation and reporting of scientific research. 

> For even more emphasis, consider buying a car. Is the average customer--or
> almost any customer--going to look at engineering drawings and reams of
> descriptions of the manufacturing process, and make a choice based on that?
> Of course not. If he makes any effort at a systematic comparison at all, he
> is likely to read Consumer Reports for a professional evaluation, how it
> actually drives and how it has held up.

Now Mr Ettinger appears not to understand the difference between science
and engineering or product marketing.
 
> In cryonics procedures also, the bottom line is results. The results of CI
> experiments have been evaluated by independent professionals--two sets of
> them--and key portions of the reports are on our web site.

No, what counts is the reproducibility of the results. If the
independent professionals do not know the purpose and source of what
they are evaluating then their evaluations are of little worth. It is
not unheard of for an independent professional to happily take your
money, wink to his associates about your purposes, and then proceed to
make an analysis and to give you a report biased toward what you want to
hear. 

-- Paul --

The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
A California charitable corporation funding research to
perfect cryopreservation of central nervous system tissue
for neuroscience research & medical repair of the brain.
Voice-mail: 416-968-6291  Fax: 559-663-5511

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15496