X-Message-Number: 18652 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:08:41 -0800 From: Olaf Henny <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #18471 (Steve Harris) & #18485 (Robert Ettinger) References: <> I have just returned from a winter vacation in sunnier climes, so I am commenting on this a bit late: In Message #18471 Dr. Steve Harris wrote: >COMMENT: If this is literally as reported, it's just another >stupidly-controlled study which has found another association >which is probably due to a dummy variable. Why (for instance) >would they possibly be so foolish as not to control for major >known things which impact stroke-risk, like socioeconomic >class and smoking behavior? Poor people who don't take their >blood pressure pills are (after all) the very same people who >don't get vaccinated. For this study to have a chance to mean >*anything,* they need to control for the fact that getting the flu >vaccine may simply be a marker for whether or not you take >care of yourself in other ways. I have come to respect the knowledge and opinions of Dr. Harris from years of observing his comments here and on sci.life- extension and would not presume to get into a discussion with him on how to conduct a scientific study. However on the above I would like to make one point: The world leading position of advanced research of the US in science in general and biomedical science specifically, cannot be disputed. However, it is also a sad fact, that in terms of provision of medical services to the poor, the US comes in dead last or close to it among developed countries (EU, G7, and Switzerland). Given the higher standards in provision of medical services, it is quite possible, that blood pressure pills as well as the flu shots were free in France and therefore also free from socio- economic limitations. Yvan Bozzonetti, any comments? In Message #18485 Robert Ettinger writes: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:31:04 EST Subject: importance of memory >I agree that retention of memory after revival is important, but not as >important as Thomas Donaldson thinks. > >Does Thomas think his infant self failed to survive? After all, he retains no >memories, or at least none he can bring to consciousness, from his first year >of life. Yet here he is, and if he looks at his baby pictures no doubt he >thinks of that as himself. The infant self "survived", because there has been a *continuity* of memory. This continuity would be interrupted, if I was revived without at least a substantial part of my memories intact. I would be but a clone of myself. Best, Olaf Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18652