X-Message-Number: 33228
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:44:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Advancing cryonics
From: Brian Wowk <>

David Pizer wrote:

>That exciting magazine was a key to the better growth rate cryonics had back
>then (along with a lot of other things that have changed).  Nowadays there is
>almost nothing exciting (in a positive way) being conveyed to the cryonics
>members and prospects.

>In those days, Mike Darwin was an exciting, and interesting, writer that kept 
>all informed and supportive of the "movement."   The "movement" sorely misses
>that type of action.

      I agree 100% with that.  The monthly writing in Cryonics
magazine in the 1980s, especially by Mike and followed by private
correspondence with Mike, was an incubator that drew many people into
cryonics who are active in the field today.  They include myself,
Steve Harris, and both present leaders of CI and Alcor.  It also
contributed to a 30% year-over-year annual growth rate over four
years, ten times the present growth rate.  There isn't anyone who can
communicate like that in cryonics today, especially anyone who can
attract and mentor technical people.

      As to my defensiveness, well, Dave, after being repeatedly asked
if I deny beating my wife, yes I've become defensive.  Granted, Mike's
criticisms were not in that league, but coming on the heels of so much
else lately, they felt that way.  (Didn't someone recently say
something about almost nothing positive being conveyed in cryonics
these days?)  Many of Mike's criticisms are well-taken, but others
lacked fair context, and some were factually inaccurate.  For example,
I privately provided Mike with photographic evidence that his belief
that glycerol solutions don't significantly supercool before freezing
was incorrect, which means that his concern about the effects of ice
blockers in Alcor's vitrification solution is not obviously correct.
Also, the listing of claimed case errors didn't disclose that they
were apparently culled from 100 cases over 20 years, including the
time of the Alcor/CryoCare split, and involving people many of whom
are no longer involved in cryonics.  Finally, under Jennifer's watch,
Alcor did become much more aggressive in its standby deployments,
achieving a near 90% standby rate for cryopreservation of members
known to be ill in 2010.  That is comparable to the Darwin/Leaf era,
and at a much higher case volume.  I think she and her team deserve
credit for that.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33228