X-Message-Number: 1664
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Darwin and Riskin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:11:48 PST

In msg 1627 Mike Darwin writes:

>      I have  delayed responding to Keith and Dave's  postings  regarding
>Saul  Kent largely as an exercise to see who else would respond and  *how*
>they would respond.  The response, or lack of it, was sadly as I expected.
>I  spoke with Saul about the Pizer/Henson postings . . . .

and [near the end]

>     At  no time was I ever told by Saul or Curtis that I should not  talk
>to  anyone  or that there were individuals whose ideas were a  "threat  to
>cryonics".   Quite the contrary!  They urged me to talk to as many  people
>as possible, listen to as many ideas as possible and form my own opinions.
>They  trusted  my  good  judgment  and respected  my  individuality   and
>intellectual  sovereignty.  Indeed,  in my entire 25  year  experience    in
>cryonics only three men have suggested that certain men were dangerous to
>associate  with, or had ideas which threatened cryonics or their  cryonics
>society.  Those three men are Keith Henson, Dave Pizer, and Robert Nelson.

Considering Nelson is the foremost villain in cryonics, it seems that 
Dave and I have been elevated to a rare status in Mike Darwin's 
opinion.  Re ideas, a few years ago I think Mike would have been very 
upset at a powerful person in cryonics strongly promoting the idea of 
relatives controlling patient suspensions.  From Mike's own words, the 
fact that relatives controlled suspensions seems to have been the 
primary reason CSNY lost their patients.  

Under some conditions (where the relatives don't have to pay anything) 
and where a cryonics organization became corrupt it might be better 
than the current situation, but it would take good evidence to 
convince me that relatives have become more reliable since the CSNY 
days.  My opinions *can* be changed with convincing arguments 
(consider the way the cost issue turned me around on local control of 
transport) but it would take mighty strong evidence. 

>Indeed just those sorts of words, just those sorts of tactics  were 
>Nelson's modus operendi: don't talk with the Chamberlains  they are 
>extremists who will discredit cryonics and destroy the Cryonics Society of 
>California (CSC). The Chamberlains should just shut up and quietly provide 
>their technical and money to CSC instead of making all these  demands...  
>God, how familiar and how ironic it is to read those words 20 years later 
>written by people who are running an organization that was created to 
>escape them. 

Err--Mike, in case you did not notice, Dave and I are on the losing side.  
Far as I can tell, we don't have much influence running anything.

>     I have many criticisms of Saul Kent and I have been very vocal in the
>past  that  he     not  be on the Alcor Board and not  be  an  Alcor  Officer
>until  his  problems  with the FDA are resolved.   However,  never  did  I
>suggest  that  Saul  (or  anyone  else!)  be  excluded     from  talking  or
>interacting  in any way (which did not involve the use of force or  fraud)
>with  any person at any time.  Saul Kent is a man who stands accused of  a
>"crime" by the FDA.  He has not been proven guilty.

Saul asked my opinion, something to the effect did I think his 
continued identification with Alcor presented a threat (meaning 2).  I 
stated my opinion, but it certainly did not have the coercive force of 
even a "suggestion."  No matter what real or imagined problems Saul's 
continued identification (association, influence, etc.) with Alcor 
might cause, I can do nothing which will affect what Saul promotes or 
who he talks to.  If I had such power, I would certainly want someone 
besides Saul in charge of his conference on the control of cryonics 
organizations.  (Saul is one of the least influencable people I have 
ever known.)  But, I am interested, is it your contention that Dave 
and I should *not* be free to speak *our* concerns? 

In msg 1636 Mike wrote:                                              

>     Keith has asked to me explain my comments to the effect that he has
>exhibited a negative attitude towards new companies being created to do
>cryonics research and that this is counterproductive.  Leaving aside
>Keith's often despairing comments about the utility of cryonics research
>in general, I have the following comments:

To the best of my memory, I have never disparaged the *utility* of 
cryonics research--though I have had written a few things which some 
might consider negative (or perhaps realistic) on what I expect in the 
way of difficulty and cost to make serious progress.  (And the 
possibility that *no* amount of money/effort in the prenanotech era 
will suffice for Saul's "perfected" suspension.) 
 
>     I refer here to message 1518 which is a long posting about the 
>dangers of Saul Kent (among other things) wherein Keith urges 
>"hypercaution" in supporting any companies created to do cryonics 
>research.  In and of itself this remark is innocuous.  Of course, caution 
>should be used.  Caution should be used when crossing the street, plugging 
>in an appliance, driving a car...  However, when, in the midst of a 
>diatribe about terrible road conditions someone pauses and says "you'd 
>better drive hypercautiously" the intent is clearly not just a general 
>piece of thowaway advice to be a prudent person.  And since Saul is on 
>the Board of one of those companies, i.e., Cryovita...

I don't mind the implied description of what I wrote as a "diatribe," 
though it has been many years since I wrote what *I* consider one.  But 
it might generate a problem if I did write a diatribe--what word would 
be left to describe it? 

[grep for hypercaution, no luck, grep for hyper, let us see what I 
actually said:]

>>I agree with Keith that my battles with the FDA pose some degree of risk
>>to Alcor.  But I'm neither a member of the Alcor Board, nor am I a
>>candidate for the Board.  I play no role in the governing of Alcor, nor
>>do I plan to.
>>
>>Saul Kent
>
>Saul, I played a role in governing Alcor--as a confidant to Carlos--
>for years before I was on the board.  Do you have less influence than I
>did?
>
>You may say you have no role.  I might say it.  It might even be true.
>
>But does anyone here think a Kunzman type is going to believe it?
>When he can't keep (or doesn't want to keep) the Rudell cocaine bust
>separate in his mind from the FDA bust on LEF and when he has a copy
>of your book in one hand, and the announcement of the change of
>Alcor's leadership in the other?  Take a look at page 16, because they
>will.
>
>The only defense I can think of is for Alcor to operate very
>cautiously, completely in the open so we never become suspected of
>*anything*, and to avoid actions such as moving the PCTF overseas,
>which would serve to draw suspicion down on Alcor.  We are going to
>have to be hyper-cautious in business dealing such as using Alcor to
>promote stock sales in cryonics research companies.  Otherwise, I
>expect we are going to "live in interesting times."
>
>Keith Henson

I am sorry that you equated my desire for *Alcor* to be hyper- 
cautious in doing such things as stock promoting for Saul (i.e., being 
very sure we stay within the letter--even the spirit--of the law) with 
exhibiting "a negative attitude towards new companies."  I certainly 
did not intend that meaning.  I clearly don't think much of Saul's 
judgment as it involves Alcor--or a critical (now former) Alcor 
supplier--because my feeling is that Saul uses a different standard of 
acceptable risk from what I consider prudent.  However, the companies 
he promotes may do marvelous research which could greatly benifit 
those who have to be suspended.  Saul may even make a ton of money-- 
for which he will have my applause. 

Re "supporting any companies created to do cryonics research" I seem 
to be doing it again, taking care of children this weekend while Arel 
and Naomi go off to work (volunteer) at Mike's lab.  Precious little 
thanks for it, of course. 

>     One of the foremost organ cryopreservationists in the world has just
>made a serious commitment of time and energy to carry out brain
>cryopreservation research.  Close to 100K has been spent to purchase new
>equipment and supplies and provide start-up facilities for this effort
>(with another 50K earmarked for computer controlled cryoprotectant
>introduction equipment) (this, in addition to the many thousands of
>dollars worth of equipment already on hand).  A 3,000 square foot cryonics
>research lab has been created with state-of-the-art (i.e., University
>level or beyond) capability to do this research.  Several people are
>working full time on this project and building skills and generating data
>that will likely be critically important in improving every aspect of
>suspension technology.  And Keith is saying, in effect, "better be careful
>of these guys."

Anyone who reads the net now knows why I was so seriously concerned 
(for Alcor) about the Cryovita management change Saul promoted.  But I 
would not be negative to someone who wanted to put money or time into 
these projects. 

>     In the past Keith has also made dire predictions of doom for
>Cryovita,

I believe anything I said along this line must have been in private 
email since greping my cryonet files fails to find anything close. In 
making this point, I think Mike just shot himself in the foot. 

>          the very company with which this cryobiologist has committed
>himself to work.  I submit that this is not the kind of thing that will
>encourage support for this venture or further its success either within
>the cryonics community or outside of it.
>
>     I stand by my assessment of Keith's remarks.

I think your case is weak, but I also don't think I have enough 
influence to matter one way or the other.

-------

In msg 1638 Michael Riskin comments on content/style of several 
people. 

>Keith (hit em harder) Henson- "There was once an incident in my life
>  where I slightly altered the facts to prove a point."

---But they lead with their *chins*, how can I help taking a swat at 
them?  :-)  Seriously, Dr. Riskin, I will listen to anyone who 
presents a case that I have made a mistake in what I write here, and 
try to see it from their viewpoint.  I was certainly willing to 
apologize for the goof I made on how long Brian Wowk had been in 
cryonics. 

>     So , it's 2093, and Joe six pack is watching super bowl 127.
>Do you think he's gonna help the cryonicists thaw us out based on
>what history will say about us?

No, but I never thought Joe six pack would help anyway.  I will be 
happy if we get everyone out of the cans.  Once that happens, I would 
not be too surprised if these cantankerous cryonicists won't speak to 
each other for the next million years.

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1664