X-Message-Number: 33399
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33358 - #33362
From: David Stodolsky <>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:32:07 +0100
References: <>

On 28 Feb 2011, at 2:16 PM, CryoNet wrote:

> I actually agree with you in that there's a reason cryonics is small.  *
> Partly* the problem is a chicken-egg issue : today, cryonics is too small to
> have access to or to *afford* teams of full time, fully formally trained
> folks in the relevant field.


A review of my earlier posted reanalysis of the Badger data will show that this 
is almost totally irrelevant to the growth of cryonics. Cryonics is small as a 
result of a profound failure to use even the most basic principles of marketing 
science (also discussed earlier: Message #32619)


dss

David Stodolsky
          Skype/Twitter: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33399