X-Message-Number: 3080
Date: 08 Sep 94 01:37:00 EDT
From: David S Pizer <>
Subject: CRYONICS

Reply to Dr. Harris:

I thought Dr. Harris' comments and critque on Bob Ettinger were
mean-spirited. And, I must admit they even made me angry.  I am glad
Mr. Ettinger has the good character that he displays in his replies.

  The facts are that there is no proof that Harris and his group can
preserve even one more brain cell than Ettinger's group when the tissue
is actually frozen.  Last time I saw Dr. Fahy (who everyone seems to
like to quote) give a presentation, he seemed to convey that he felt
that there was a lot of improvement needed.  Bob Ettinger is trying to
imporve freezing techniques.  Where's the beef?

Recently Paul Wakefer made a big deal out of Dr. Merkle's simple use of
a one sentence definition in an invitation to a cryonics affair. 
Wakefer was outraged that he felt that Merkle was misrepresenting the
state of cryonics to the public -- I believe Wakefer's word was
"foisting."     Well, Paul, where is your indignation now when Harris
infers that BioPreservation is probably offering a good chance of
preserving information?  Is that not a better example of "Foisting?"
 Where is your demand for full disclosure when one of "yours" really
does mistate the big picture?

====================

Harris and his group spend a lot of money on WASHOUTS.

Ettinger hired people to study actual FREEZING of tissue.  

IMHO it is more important to study damage done in freezing than in
washouts.  It is true that Ettinger's work is in the early stages, but
it is an important step and I think Bob Ettinger should be applauded
and encouraged for this work --- not attacked.

Further improvments in technology in washouts is like improving the
technology in manufacturing dynamite fuses.  It might make the dynamite
go off a little quicker but it has no further impact on (or protection
against) what happens to the nearby matter after the dynamite has gone
off.  In other words, there are a lot more changes in one's brain AFTER
the temperature drops below the freezing point then before.  Knowing
what happens after sheep brains are frozen is much more valuable than
knowing what happens to dog brains before they are meerly washed out.


Ettinger has always had a reputation for getting value.  The cryonics
movement may learn a lot more on how to protect our patients from
Ettinger's inexpensive freezing work than from the large sums of money
spent of learning more about washout.  In any case, the arguement for
Ettinger's new work is the same as the argument for cryonics, why not
try it, you have nothing to lose.

In addition, let's not forget Ettinger stores his patients in a much
safer environment than Harris and company and for a more reasonable
figure than Harris and company.  Even Darwin admits that the social and
political considerations of KEEPING patients frozen may be our biggest
future hurdle.  Therefore, Steve how can you even begin to attack
Ettinger (or anyone else) when you continue to store your patients in
one of the most unsafe areas in the United States?  I would think you
would correct that problem BEFORE you take on the position of moral
judge and jury of all other cryonicists.

Many of us want Mr. Ettinger to know we appreciate his recent postings
and we hope the snipes of a few will not prevent him from continuing to
share information with the rest of us who want to learn as much as we
can.

As far as Dr. Harris' mis-characterization of Mr. Ettinger's postion(s)
and Dr. Harris' cheap shot at Alcor in his final paragraph, all I can
say is Dr. Harris is a lot better at building straw men than good
relationships in the cryonics community.

The bottom line is -- Steve, are you going to contiue to take cheap
shots at the rest of us or are we going to try to get along?  I hope
this can be the last word on this and we can develope a more productive
relationship in the future.

	Dave Pizer

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3080