X-Message-Number: 15644
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Answers!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:28:34 +0000


It's funny that Robert Ettinger has started to give me answers while claiming 
that he doesn't have to give me answers and isn't giving me answers.


I'm not going to be fussy, I will accept the answers in whatever way he chooses 
to give them, and, thank you very much. He has now enabled me to knock one 
question off my list. 


While Ettinger still claims that I will ask more questions if he answers the old
questions, this is not the case. My revised list is posted below, and Mr. 
Ettinger will see that no new questions have been added, while one has been 
removed. Let's hope this progress can continue, perhaps a little more rapidly.

> A couple of readers have complained that CI evaluations of experimental 
> results have not used enough samples, or sufficiently varied samples, or a 
> large enough number of electron microscope photos, etc. Well, we have done 
> what we could afford to do, and results have been encouragingly consistent. 


This seems to be the best answer I will get to my question about how many 
samples were looked at by the Canadian lab, and whether the CI web page shows 
only the best photos. It's not a good answer (no numbers!) but I'll drop the 
question anyway. My understanding of the answer is that not many samples were 
taken, but they all looked much the same.

> not a single electron 
> microscope photo, for example, from whole animal brains after treatment by 

> the current Alcor method and after rewarming from liquid nitrogen temperature.


So, it's back to the old Alcor bashing! Mr. E. cleverly avoids mentioning that 
electron microscope photos of brains frozen and rewarmed with the ice blocker 
that Alcor is using seemed to show much less damage than the pictures on the CI 
web site, using the CI method. Funny about that!

> First, we cannot test their procedure so long as it remains secret, and 
> nobody else can provide independent verification. 


I understand that CI has not bothered to buy a bottle of ice blocker for $99. I 
believe it is compatible with glycerol, and improves glycerol, which CI could 
check for itself, quite easily. So much for the "secrecy."

> Dr. Lemler, Alcor's psychiatrist, has diagnosed some of my comments as 
> "political." However, he hasn't billed me yet for his opinion.


Ahh, can we say "point scoring"? I especially like that Mr. E. refers to the new
Alcor medical director as a "psychiatrist." Nice one, Bob!

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15644