X-Message-Number: 16357 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 08:52:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: "attacks," Ben Best, and Steve Jackson Ben Best has referred to my "attacks on CI." In fact, so far as I am aware, the statement that I wrote, triggering the recent massive backlash from David Pascal, consisted of one sentence on an obscure British mail list. One sentence, in which I expressed an opinion which I have expressed several times before. (I haven't checked the chronology, but I believe my mention of 7th Day Adventists came later.) I then replied to Pascal as briefly as I could (certainly at a fraction of the length of his post). My discussion of CI procedures--such as the practice of a slow initial cooldown which I believe increases the risk of autolysis--can be found in CryoNet archives at least two years ago, as far as I recall. I hate to repeat myself, and have tried not to do so. But I do feel entitled to express an opinion once in a while. I admire Ben Best's dogged persistence (he is one of the most persistent people I have ever met). His apparent willingness to join an organization which he finds unsatisfactory, with the hope of enhancing it, is admirable. But personally I can't do that. I quit from Alcor long ago when I discovered what I considered to be misuse of patient funds (a situation which was rectified subsequently). I preferred not to associate myself with a group that I felt was, _at that time,_ violating its own bylaws and not revealing this fact clearly to its members. I would find it even more distressing, personally, to be a member of an organization which I felt was providing suboptimal care to its patients. Since I am not entirely happy with the current Alcor administration, and indeed I was told by Linda Chamberlain that I am "full of hate" and "there is no place for me at Alcor" (!) I prefer not to join that organization either. We'll see how Kryos works out. Regardless of my personal friction with Mike Darwin a couple years ago, I know him to be ethical about patient care, well informed, and very able to distinguish good science from pseudoscience, which sets him apart from 99 percent of other cryonicists. Also, I have some input on Kryos policy, since I have been asked to serve as a director. But if I don't feel comfortable with decisions or procedures at Kryos, I won't hesitate to quit and explain the reasons. This is known as "consumer feedback," to which cryonics should not be immune. Personally I believe that we vote with our decisions to affiliate ourselves with various entities, whether they are corporate, political, nonprofit, or ecumenical. This is the logic that leads some people to boycott grapes, sneakers, or other products. It is the logic that led one person I know to emigrate from the United States and relocate in Anguilla, which better suits his libertarian ideology. I wish cryonics members were similarly discriminating in their evaluations of organizations, would inquire more actively about the procedures that are used, and would make membership decisions on this basis. If people were also willing to explain their "purchasing decisions" publicly, this would be even more helpful. There are numerous mail lists, chat rooms, and discussion groups online where people explain their decisions to buy different brands of computers, or they argue over the merits of different authors or movies. Why should cryonics be any different? Why shouldn't CI advocates, Alcor advocates, and "none of the above" advocates flame each other as freely as Mac-vs.-PC advocates? I absolutely reject the argument that cryonics is more vulnerable to criticism, and therefore should be protected from it. The fact that expressions of opinion, in cryonics, precipitate such an outpouring of anger, merely indicates a) extreme defensiveness and b) the rarity of anyone being forthright. For instance, it has become clear that Steve Jackson has some significant resentments or disagreements right now, and since he is an Alcor member, I suspect that Alcor is at least partly the cause of his rancor. But since he won't tell us what happened or what's bothering him, he provides no help for other Alcor members who should be concerned if malfeasance has occurred. I really don't see the point of making oblique, cryptic references; if something's wrong, why not come right out and say so? We should expect more clashes of opinion in this field than in more conventional businesses. Activists of a controversial theory, where no widely accepted standards have been established and no system exists to evaluate the outcome of procedures, should _expect_ to be challenged. Anyone who washes out blood with an embalming pump, dumps in a bit of heparin followed by some glycerol under relatively primitive laboratory conditions, allows the dead person to simmer gently (on a cryogenic scale) for a couple of weeks, freezes the person with an unknown degree of ice damage, and then claims this patient has an excellent chance of coming back to life, should _expect_ to rouse some strident skepticism--and deal with it factually and rationally. Right, David? --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16357