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