X-Message-Number: 16191
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: UK situation

> Message #16184
> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 06:18:07 -0600
> From: Linda Chamberlain <>
> Yes, Charles, this information is wrong.
>
> Alcor has not deprived any UK members of their memberships.  Alcor has
> grandfathered all existing members who wish to retain their memberships,

If this is the case, I wonder why the British members have said repeatedly
that they have been abandoned by Alcor; I wonder how the whole issue of
their British insurance came up; and I wonder why several of the British
people are planning to join CI. Perhaps you changed the terms of UK
membership, even though the people in the UK are still technically
members?

> There were no offers to pay cash and refusals.

On the contrary, I was shown an email message, addressed to you, which
made the specific proposal that I summarized here in my last message to
CryoNet. While I was not shown an Alcor response (perhaps because the
response was intended to be private) I was told that the response was
negative.

I realize that this is primarily a matter for Alcor and its British
members to determine. What troubles me (and led me to make my original
post here) is that people I know in the USA were already circulating
versions of what had happened in the UK. In other words, news about Alcor
was circulating via sources who are not even Alcor members.

This is a really bad time for dissemination of cryonics news. We have no
independent sources of information. CI, as you know, seems to have an
unofficial policy of providing minimal (at best) case notes. Alcor
eliminated the monthly newsletter intended primarily for its members, and
now offers only a quarterly journal. Aside from these sources we have
CryoNet (where news is seldom disseminated, unless it takes the form of
press releases promoting organizations) and sci.cryonics, which is
dormant.

Under the circumstances, we shouldn't be surprised if rumors flourish. But
I wasn't circulating a rumor. I was quoting from text that I was shown,
and was reporting a situation in England that almost all American
cryonicists probably were unaware of. The British participants on the
Yahoo discussion list that they established are expressing the most
negative feelings about Alcor that I have seen in years. Something is
going on, here, and your bland assurance that nothing has changed just
makes me more puzzled. Either there has been an amazing miscommunication
across the Atlantic, or your version is incomplete.

I don't enjoy being in the middle on this. Both sides will be annoyed with
me, one way or another. But since cryonics is based entirely on trust (at
least until patients can be resuscitated), I have always felt that more
open discussion and sharing of information is better than less. I have
shared the small amount of information that I had, while making three
separate caveats that I was not absolutely certain that I had the full
story. I know that some UK people read CryoNet. I urge them to tell
people, here, what THEY think happened.

David Pizer writes:

> I am not a defender of contemporary Alcor.  I dissagree with some of the
> ways they are managing their business plan.  I do not know any of the facts
> that Charles talked about in his post.  But, just by reading the way the
> post was written, I got the impression that Charles was misrepresenting the
> facts.   Since I assume Charles will be a supported of Kryos, I view this
> as an intention to begin a campaign of negative stuff about the existing
> organizations.

I am not a member of Kryos and have made no plans to join. I'm waiting for
Kryos to start offering services, at which point I may make a decision.
But currently I am not a member of any active cryonics organization, and
have made no secret of this, which should speak for itself. I have been
surprised recently to find that at least ten CryoCare members have failed
to make new arrangements with any other organization. I suggest that if
proven activists feel so disenchanted that they can't bring themselves to
make new arrangements with the existing organizations, something is
seriously wrong. I would also suggest that the full story about
BioTransport has not been told.

Dave, I will be just as critical of Kryos as I am of any organization. I
have no favorites at this point. I wish I did. And, incidentally, during
the CryoCare years, I was often quite critical of our own capabilities,
much to the irritation of some of our members, who complained that I was
appallingly negative. Well, as I have mentioned before, I think negative
feedback is necessary.

> If Alcor really has told the far-away members they are cut off, as you
> implied, then you telling them again they are cut off will help you or them
> any more than what has already happened.  If they ARE cut off, they will
> joing your orgainization.  If they are not cut off, your telling them they
> are, will not help you or them.

What interests me, Dave, is that even though you are extremely closely
connected with Alcor, even you freely agree that you don't know what the
facts are.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16191