X-Message-Number: 16375 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:41:11 -0700 From: Subject: Re: Platts Post 16357 References: <> wrote: May 28, 2001 From: Michael Riskin In Cryonet 16357, Charles Platt writes " I quit from Alcor long ago when I discovered what I considered to be a misuse of patient funds ( a situation which was rectified subsequently )". I have three problems with that statement: 1: ( Factual): Charges had been made by several Alcor members that accused the management of misuse of funds, including the words " cover-up, embezzlement and hemmorhaging of funds". Being a CPA, the then Alcor ombudsman, and concerned Alcor member of ten years duration I conducted an audit of the funds in question. (Actually, it was the management of the *endowment fund* that was questioned and not patient care funds). Results and information about that audit may be found in cryonet #'s 1318 and 0014.42 . While the audit did illuminate areas in which accounting and administrative procedures could be improved, there was no evidence whatsover of executive wrongdoing or misuse of funds. At my initiation, a further step was taken which was to engage the services of an independent certified public accounting firm. They performed a certified audit and wrote an unqualified professional opinion attesting to the accuracy of the Alcor books and records. I believe Mr. Platt knows of all of the above. I therefore find his repetition of old, unproven, and fully rebutted charges against Alcor, particularly without presenting the entire fact base, to be a partisan portrayal of history. 2: ( Mr Platts Subjective Conclusions ): The impression that Charles leaves the reader with is that he left solely because of the "funds" issue ( he mentions no other reason). I submit that there were many other reasons, also well documented in the cryonet archives. Again, by omitting other context information, the erroneous "fund misuse" charge gains inappropriate and additional historical strength. 3: ( Mr. Platts Spin ): By stating that the situation was " rectified subsequently" serves to imply and fortify the erroneous notion that there was in fact something wrong that was later fixed. That implication is in direct contradiction with the subsequent facts as noted above, and, is incorrect as it stands anyway since there could be no " rectified subsequently " as there was nothing to rectify. More accurate would have been " disproven subsequently", but then again that phrasing bears no agenda value. It is important to note that the persons who publicly accused Alcor management of serious criminal acts refused to retract or even modify their both unproven and disproven ( and reckless in my opinion ) accusations, even in the light of materially substantial, if not overwhelming contradictory evidence. I still consider that refusal, to this day, to be act of ethical dishonesty. Michael Riskin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16375