X-Message-Number: 16572
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:49:43 -0400
From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <>
Subject: Alcor and the Vissers

To Cryonet
From Steve Bridge
(former Alcor President)
June 17, 2001

In reply to:

     Message #16554
     Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
     From: Charles Platt <>
     Subject: Reply to Olaf
 
I'm not reading CryoNet regularly anymore, but my attention was called to
this post and I felt I had to add some perspective.

Charles Platt and Mike Darwin (in later message #16561) are pretty accurate
in their assessments of the Olga Visser experiments sponsored by Cryonics
Institute and the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and correct in pointing
out Olaf Henny's incorrect understanding of them.  I was President of Alcor
at the time and involved in this arrangement right from the beginning, as
soon as Bob Ettinger called then-Vice President Dave Pizer and me to
discuss correspondence he had had with Mrs. Visser.  

My time these days does not allow me to review all my notes from that year
to give a fully detailed history, but a few points should be helpful.

There was both excitement and skepticism about the Visser's claims when we
first heard them; but there was enough reason to move ahead to see if they
were legitimate.  We knew only about the heart freezing claims at the
beginning.  Alcor was still locked in a sometimes bitter competition with
CryoCare for the hearts and minds and memberships of a lot of people.  We
felt that we were ahead in patient care and organizational stability but we
knew that the people most likely to make future technical improvements had
moved to CryoCare.  We were still looking for new ideas.  If the Vissers
DID have something that worked, then we needed to find out about it. 

When the Vissers made their first trip to Arizona (in September, 1996, I
think), we were all excited to be trying something new.  My first inkling
that we might have a problem was at dinner with the Vissers the first
night.  One of the two said something like, "Oh, and it cures AIDS, too." 
(NOT something less than that, by the way.  NOT "it looks like it might
have an effect on the AIDS virus, too."  They said "It cures AIDS.")  They
launched into an explanation of how that worked.  Dave Pizer and I talked
afterwards and agreed that both our stomachs had tightened the moment we
heard that.  Neither Dave nor I are scientists, but we both knew that "if
it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  We couldn't understand how
a chemical could be both a miracle cryoprotectant and a miracle cure for
one of the world's most devastating diseases.  But we didn't start a fuss.
We had already flown them half way around the world and we needed to see
what they had.

And their private demonstration for us looked pretty good to our (in
retrospect) naive eyes.  We did not appreciate that the best preserved rat
heart of the series might *not* have immersed in the nitrogen.  Alcor and
CI agreed to put up $25,000 each to support further research for the
Vissers and which would secure the two organizations exclusive North
American rights to use their "discovery" for cryonics purposes.  One has to
take financial risks to make progress and fund research in new discoveries.
 If something DID come of this, $25,000 would be an incredible investment.

Of course, it was a failure, a total flop.  The Vissers couldn't back up
their claims at all, except by fooling themselves and others into believing
something that wasn't happening.  (Unlike Mike Darwin, I do not believe
they started as conscious frauds.  I think they were bad scientists who did
not know how to admit they were wrong once the publicity started.  Whether
they became conscious frauds later or just worse fools is a question I
cannot judge.)

I think the WORST mistake that CI and Alcor made was to agree to publicize
these brief experiments to all the media we could find, before we had done
more research ourselves and found that the work could be duplicated and
extended.  It is not a mistake to pay money for possibly successful ideas. 
It IS a mistake to subject oneself to public embarrassment by stating a
success that you cannot verify.  We should have waited.  If the discovery
was a great success, it would be equally important six months later.  If it
was a dead end, it could have blown quietly past, and we could have chalked
it up to an investment in experience.  But the Alcor and CI Boards were not
feeling patient at that time, and I allowed the enthusiasm of Bob and Mae
Ettinger and some Alcor Directors to overwhelm my natural reticence. (Dave
Pizer was equally reticent about that premature public announcement, which
may surprise some people who think that Dave is willing to charge ahead
enthusiastically on everything.)

Charles asks a related question, though, that requires a different answer
than he might expect.

>Do you really think it made sense for each organization to spend
>(according to my sources) $25,000, on this demo?
 
Actually, my answer (for Alcor, at least) has always been, "Yes."  If it
had worked, it would have been a great moment in cryonics and worth every
penny.  And you can't always know in advance what will happen.  And only
such a demonstration would have gotten all of those bright, observant minds
together in the same room to interpret what was really happening.

But even more importantly in this situation, you can learn a lot from
failure, and we did.  We learned that we could gather a bunch of competing
scientists and organization leaders together for a demonstration and that,
as long as we were honest and open, we could still have productive
conversations.  I think that this failed experiment was a "success" in
beginning conversations that have led Alcor to more cooperation with the
people who switched to CryoCare.  Life in cryonics is far from perfect
today and many personal and organizational problems still exist (not to
mention the obvious technical ones).  But it would have been a lot worse if
we hadn't gathered everyone together in Scottsdale and then faced up to
what we saw there. 

We also learned how easily we could be fooled and how little most of us at
Alcor really knew about the subtle points of the science involved in
cryopreservation research.  Discovering and accepting that you are not as
smart as you thought you were is an irreplaceable step to getting better as
individuals and as organizations.  I think this discovery was a great
stimulus to the changes in Alcor since I left as President.

While we are still a long way from being a fully successful organization, I
think in many ways Alcor (that is, the "changed" Alcor which existed after
the 1994 split) began to "grow up" after the Visser failures.  As an
organization, we became a bit less enamored of our own abilities and a bit
more willing to listen to the ideas of other smart cryonicists, even if we
did have hard feelings between us.  Death doesn't care about our pride or
squabbles; it just carries on, wiping out friends, families, and eventually
us.

So, yes, making a big mistake can be worth $25,000 - as long as you learn
from it.  

Steve Bridge
(my own opinions; not those of Alcor or any other person associated with
Alcor)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16572