X-Message-Number: 3236
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 02:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS:Funding for Patients

I regret that on this occasion, Dave Pizer's statements are not merely
inaccurate, but grossly damaging. Please remember, Dave, that the laws of
libel do apply here. In the meantime, I suppose I have to deal with this.
Dave Pizer writes: 

> I can't tell you how surprized I was to hear that CryoCare was going to
> take patients and allow the relatives to make payments like in the old
> days.  

This statement is totally false, as Dave would know if he had ever
bothered to read our literature, which states that it is our strict policy
*always* to insist that every CryoCare member must make arrangements for
*full payment upon legal death* for cryopreservation. Under no
circumstances would we accept installment payments for storage from
relatives on an ongoing basis. Our fee schedule clearly lists minimums
(established in consultation with our long-term care provider, CryoSpan)
which must be paid upon legal death to earn sufficient interest to cover
maintenance of the patient in liquid nitrogen for the indefinite future.
We have made no exceptions to this rule.

> Mike insisted that Alcor only take patients who had paid in 
> full, in advance. 

You seem to forget, Dave, that Alcor HAS made exceptions to this rule.
James Bedford is stored by Alcor as a charity case who is paid for out of
other patients' funds. Also, I believe there have been two other cases in
the past two years where Alcor received no payment for members who died,
but the patients are in storage anyway. Perhaps David Cosenza also
overlooked these facts when he condemned Robert Nelson for accepting cases
where there was insufficient funding. David Cosenza referred to this, in
his usual charming way, as the equivalent of a "Ponzi scheme." 

Personally, I respect Alcor's compassionate reasons for maintaining the
patients whom I refer to above, and if I had been put in the same
position, I might have done the same thing. At CryoCare, we hope that by
verifying members' payment arrangements scrupulously, we will never be in
the position that Alcor has faced at least once, of freezing someone and
then finding that the insurance company refuses to pay. Of course, we
can't guarantee that this will never happen. 

> I believe that Mr. Nelson and Mr. Kent both went out of the 
> cryonics business for the same reason, lack of relatives 
> desire or ability to keep paying the storage costs of their 
> loved ones. 

This is a gross and unfair oversimplification, as Dave is well aware.
Robert Nelson was put out of business by a successful law suit. Saul Kent
was not even actively involved with CSNY at the time it suspended
operations. CSNY surrendered custody of its patients to relatives who
requested this for reasons of their own. All these facts have been posted
here on CryoNet in the past. Although the company is currently inactive,
CSNY still exists as a tax-exempt organization under the directorship of
Curtis Henderson. It was not "put out of business." 

> I have found out that Mr. Kent turned some of his patients 
> over to Mr. Nelson; I don't know why.  

> I want to know what happened NOW so I can 
> see if I can make any changes to the way we do cryonics to 
> improve my chances of not getting thawed out like all those 
> other people did. 

Dave, I suggest to you that YOU DO NOT REALLY WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING. If
you had a sincere interest in this topic, you could pick up the phone and
get answers in less than an hour. In fact, the answers have already been
posted here in response to previous innuendo from you on this topic. More
than a year ago, Mike Darwin took the trouble to present a case-by-case
summary explaining everything that happened to the patients of CSNY.
Instead of referring to this summary, you prefer to speculate vaguely. I 
have to ask, now, why you persist in doing this.

I you are much smarter, and much better informed, than you make yourself
seem. I believe that you choose to act naive because this enables you to
speculate in a damaging way, without taking any responsibility for what
you say. I believe that you don't really care whether your facts are right
or wrong, or whether anyone rebuts them, because all you are trying to do
is establish some doubt in people's minds, and you hope that this doubt
will remain even after we have set the record straight. 

You are a basically decent man, Dave, and I hate to see you using tactics
of this kind, because they are unworthy of you. I also feel that they are
unworthy of Alcor, the organization of which you are now vice-president. I
have a lot of respect for many of the people who are running Alcor, and in
my opinion, your actions here reflect extremely badly on them. 

Now let me turn to the other "Dreadful Dave." Cosenza writes: 

> Since you chose not to contribute anything substantive, I don't see where 
> a meaningful dialogue is possible. Since you want to just assume you 
> know what my motivations are and launch ad hominem attacks against others, 
> then maybe you'll take kinder to what Charles Platt posted. As always, it 
> had his own spin, but he essentially agreed with my facts. Thanks Charles 
> for the level reply. 

You know perfectly well, David, that I don't agree with you at all. I
totally rejected your "Ponzi scheme" statement. I also suggested that if
you had been in Robert Nelson's position, you wouldn't have done any
better than he did. For this you thank me? It was not intended as praise. 

############################################################
Charles Platt, 1133 Broadway (room 1214), New York, NY 10010
      Voice: 212 929 3983      Fax: 212 929 4467

[ I think that the message by Mike Darwin referred to above is
  message #1627, which you can retrieve by sending email to me
  with the Subject line "CRYOMSG 1627". - KQB ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3236