X-Message-Number: 17558
From: 
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 04:42:58 EDT
Subject: Multi-Subject

CryoNet:

I read Charles Platt's article in this month's Discover magazine. Real 
interesting. It centered around experimentation with perfluorocarbons for 
delivering oxygen while lowering body temperature during cardiac arrest 
emergencies to ward off brain damage.  Paramedics may be toting new equipment 
before long and more people may be surviving.  Charles gives a brief run down 
on the technology's evolution to date and maybe demonstrates a bias against 
cryonicist scientists, or maybe just the old politics of science.  Its a 
couple of monumental leaps from inspiration to research lab to practical 
application in the field.  From the article, it appears Mike Darwin and Steve 
Harris may have even more conspicuously paved the way for other researchers 
than other researchers paved the way Watson and Crick.  However, the market 
is the judge for applied technology--cheaper and better.  Charles points out 
that the best-known figure in resuscitation medicine and developer of 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the US will be evaluating a prototype of 
Mike and Steve's device.  I will be looking forward to a future follow-up 
article.

New Subject:
I have also detected a bias against Robert Ettinger and CI from time to time 
from some on the CryoNet which is less understandable to me.  Mike Darwin 
took exception to Ettinger's recent writing, writing of which made sense to 
me, or at very least was not particularly offensive.  As someone recently 
mentioned, clarity and conciseness are often at odds with each other.  Maybe 
it's just in the interpretation, but then, that's what bias is about.

New Subject:
I do not understand the following from Mike:
QUOTE:
"Further, it will not be un-repeated without global conflict to resolve the 
very fundamental differences between two systems of value and fundamental 
ways of viewing reality."
UNQUOTE

New Subject:
Robert Ettinger writes:
QUOTE
"On another subject, it occurs to me that some readers may be moved to donate 
money toward the victims of the recent terrorism rather than the James Swayze 
fund. With all due respect, I suggest that we keep things in perspective."
UNQUOTE

I agree, American tax payers will be donating 40 billion to the cause, part 
of which will be for survivors.  James Swayze could conceivably accumulate as 
many life years as those that have been lost at less than one-one-millionth 
of the cost. 

"Cost" and "lives" vulgar in the same sentence?  World-Wide, over 25,000 
people die daily from very cheaply preventable causes.

Regards,

David C. Johnson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17558