X-Message-Number: 16554 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:08:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Reply to Olaf > From: Olaf Henny <> > Charles with all due respect, this is a bunch of *hui*, which you > have repeated ad nauseam in this forum and which, has been > refuted so many times, My basic factual statements have not been refuted. But as I said in my message, my points largely refer to procedures that were used until recently and may be modified more substantially in the future, since a qualified cryobiologist is now affiliated with the organization. I was clarifying old statements (in response to a request). > To try out a possible new procedure in house before > applying it to patients is to me reasonable and responsible. Of course. But should this be the totality of research? > Furthermore both Robert > Ettinger and David Pascal have repeatedly stated their > willingness to verify (and obtain the right to adopt-)Alcor's > vitrification process, should details about the methodology and > the ice blockers be made available to them. As has been stated here, 21CM ice blocker is available for purchase by any interested party, can be used in conjunction with existing protocol, and had not been purchased by CI (the last time I checked). > Even though you have recently planted your foot squarely into > Alcor's Petrie dish, you seem to value their procedures well > above those of CI. I have with all my reading of Cryonet > throughout the years not learned of one instance, where Alcor has > included the fruits of CI research. That's pretty funny. Do you have any suggestions as to why Alcor should downgrade its equipment? Would you make the same complaint about a hospital? "I'm not going to have my heart bypass operation there, because they've never tried to eliminate that unnecessary monitoring and data collection equipment and run the procedures by guesswork, which probably works just as well." Also, most CI research is hard to replicate because it is not thoroughly documented or reported. "We went to the local slaughterhouse and collected some sheep heads" allows some room for uncontrolled variables. As I understand the situation, at this time Alcor is mainly interested in developing cooling/storage techniques that are appropriate to its future use of vitrification. It is doing precisely what I would think is most sensible: Building on results from another laboratory (21CM) instead of ignoring the work that has been done there. > Olga Visser reported some very exciting results in reviving > rabbit hearts. Oh Olaf! They were rat hearts, not rabbit hearts. Let's do a fact-check before accusing _me_ of putting my foot in my mouth, eh? > That she published these results gave her a good > measure of credibility. She published claims. She did not publish a complete description of her work. That's why so many people made the pilgrimage to Alcor, to see her perform the experiment. It was the only way to find out what the hell was going on. > It was commendable, that Robert Ettinger > and CI underwrote the considerable expense to bring her to the > States to duplicate the experiments here. Do you really think it made sense for each organization to spend (according to my sources) $25,000, on this demo? > Among the observers, > who watched the attempts to repeat the experiments, was, watching > with baited breath, one Charles Platt, who is now accusing others > of gullibility. Ah, so I can't win! If I stay home, I'm guilty of ignoring important work. If I go to witness it, I'm guilty of gullibility. But in fact I went there because I couldn't believe the claims that were being made. This is not gullibility, it is healthy skepticism coupled with a willingness to spend my own time and money to verify my own beliefs. (Did you bother to visit the demo, incidentally?) And while I was there I saw a seemingly sincere lady state that a heart had resumed beating when clearly (as she was later compelled to admit) this was not the case. All this is old history, Olaf. Fred Chamberlain documented the whole thing on video, I wrote an exhaustive description of the experiment, Fred himself posted a very decent message here retracting former claims from Alcor, and the last we heard of Olga, she was using her cryoprotectant as an AIDS cure which didn't work. The fact that you would attempt to defend this farcical episode (one of the most embarrassing in the history of cryonics) suggests that I'm not the one, here, who is gullible. > If CI has extended the benefit of doubt to Ms. Visser > for longer than others, then it is presumably because of the enomous > importance a successful revival of the rabbit hearts would have had > for cryonics. As I pointed out at the time, Basile Luyet, the "father of cryobiology," demonstrated resuscitation of rat-heart pieces after brief immersion in liquid nitrogen; and Steve Harris explained that the rhythmic contraction of a heart depends on a cascade of nerve impulses, totally different from the complex firing patterns of neurons in the brain. > Charles, it is this anti-scientific-establishment attitude, that > let Robert Ettinger found the cryonics movement in the first > place and "sucker you in, in the process", - at least > temporarily, now you seem more intent on spreading venom and > with specific intensity at CI. This is not an issue of integrity. Everyone means well. I think even Olga Visser believed in her work, and meant well. But well-meaning people may have very different ideas on the best way to proceed. That's the issue here. What's the best way to use limited resources? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use an inclusive approach, based on a thorough knowledge of all work done by others? As for the decision to defy conventional cryobiologists and promote cryonics via mass media in the mid-1960s, there are two points of view on this issue. Bear in mind that before cryonics was widely promoted, orthodox scientists were trying to cryopreserve mammals. After the promotion of cryonics, orthodox science abandoned these attempts. Were the scientists afraid of being associated with "body freezers"? Probably. Would research have proceeded more productively if backyard attempts to freeze humans, and talk-show appearances, had not been made? I tend to think so. But, it's all in the past. Cryonics organizations exist. One has to make the best of the current situation. > Yes, I know, you will not accept anything, which comes out of > CI's labs. You are voting against CI out of principle, the > reason for which I can't even guess. And then there is Dr. > Pichugin, who voted (with his feet) *for* CI. Either because he wanted the prestige of being associated with CI, or because he saw great opportunities for improvement. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16554