X-Message-Number: 16363 From: "Graham Hipkiss" <> Subject: European Cryonics Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:28:31 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01C0E715.81578560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To Charles Platt, Thanks for taking an interest in European Cryonics, it is appreciated. I agree with you that your criticism, expressed on cryonet, mainly directed against CI, which some find to be purely negative, is probably constructive and may contribute to necessary improvements in suspension proceedures. However, I am still considering a transfer from Alcor to CI, although I have been an active member of Alcor UK since 1994. Now that CI use a ramped glycerol perfusion and we have a CI standby team being organised, it would seem to be the best choice for people in the UK. Maybe, Alcor is the superior because they use stabilising medications which should be advantageous and CI, at present, do not, but they are useless unless you have people around to apply them quickly. As Alcor's UK and European membership shrinks we have fewer people here to rely on and Alcor's current standby requirement of 5 days notice and $35,000 up front, is a joke. Ever since I joined Alcor I've heard members deride CI saying, 'they just rely on an undertaker to collect you after you are pronounced and ship you off to the US, whereas, Alcor provide an effective suspension'. It appears that here in the UK that situation has been reversed. I would appreciate your (and others) comments on my options given that I only have two, as my multiple myeloma history suggests it would not be wise to hang around waiting for another organisation, whether it be Kryos or a European group. Graham Hipkiss ------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01C0E715.81578560 Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16363