X-Message-Number: 5390
From:  (hEpCaT)
Subject: Re: Trans Time, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 05:25:59 -0800 (PST)

Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From:  (hEpCaT)
Subject: Re: Trans Time, Inc.
Message-ID: <>
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]

References: <> 
<> <> 
<> <> 
<> <>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 05:51:48 GMT
Lines: 209
Sender: 

 sez:
>       Actually, Dave, I haven't a clue about what your own account
> of cryonics history is.  It seems to stray farther from reality 
> everyday. 
>

My account of the political infighting at Alcor has remained consistent 
throughout my involvement on the net. (And if you don't have a clue, then 
how do you know that I am far from reality?) That much you must *surely* 
know since you have read all my posts and responded to a fair amount of 
them too. In fact, I distinctly recall an exchange not too long ago on the
CryoNet where you and I had this discussion and I all but told everyone
what occurred and what the circumstances were. We even got into some of
the particulars-- but, since that has evidently slipped your mind, let 
me try once more to give you my account. If you have any criticisms 
afterward, we can continue this in private email where a discussion may 
be more appropriate.

The split at Alcor that resulted in the founding of the CryoCare group of
organizations resulted from Alcor's board refusing to have anything to do
with Mike Darwin. Apparently, CryoCare's founders didn't agree with Alcor
that Darwin's actions were a serious enough threat to the survivability of
anyone he trades with. Prior to the final break, (as I understand it this 
was precipitated by Jerry Leaf's handwritten letter saying that Darwin had
admitted *much more* than "poor judgment" in the Dora Kent suspension) it 
seemed that Alcor had tried to distance itself from Darwin (getting him off 
the board & off the payroll, by using him as a contractor). But apparently 
that wasn't enough since even under those circumstances, he took the first 
opportunity he had to again needlessly endanger the organization and the
patient with his impatience and his trusty syringe.

I suppose the reason I get hot & adamant about this issue is I'm more
certain than most people that I will personally survive if the organization
that froze me is more concerned about its long term future that about 
getting instant gratification while suspending me. If I'm in a coma and
the suspension team has to wait a while longer that it would like in order
to access my body legally, too bad for them. I paid my money, but I am NOT
obligated to take unnecessary chances. If Alcor hadn't proceeded as it did,
that would have left me and others who share this attitude without a place
to go.

If there is a market for the risk-taking which the CryoCare companies 
are designed to exploit, fine. But I think it would only be fair to be 
upfront with the disclosures instead of coyly or sarcastically pretending
that you don't know what I'm talking about. A good place to start would be 
formal answers to this old Cryonet post that went completely ignored up 
until now:

From: 
Message-Subject: CRYONICS.POLITICS  Caveat
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 20:26:45 PDT

From: Carlos Mondragon
To: CryoNet Politics

     In  his  posting  regarding the recent (October  2)  closed  meeting,
Charles  Platt again insists that problems between Alcor and  Mike  Darwin
are  soley  the  result  of personal animosities  on  the  part  of  Alcor
directors, and that Alcor's concerns are trivial.  It is my  understanding
that  Charles  is  now working with Mike, Saul Kent,  and  others  on  the
formation of new cryonics organizations.  For the sake of argument, if one
were  to completely discount everything said by Alcor management  on  this
subject,  then I suggest one might be interested in what *Saul  Kent*  has
said.

     In  March of this year Saul Kent sent a memo to Alcor's board  urging
it  to  enter into an agreement with Bioprservation for the  provision  of
standby,  total body washout, and perfusion services.  The memo was  seven
pages  long,  most of it praising Mike Darwin's technical  experience  and
expertise.   There were however certain passages, reproduced below,  which
give rise to many questions:

Mr. Kent wrote:

            Does Mike's Inclination To Take Risks Rule Him Out
              As A Provider Of Cryonic Suspension Services?

     Before  commenting further on the reasons I think Alcor should  offer
Mike's  suspension services to its members, I'd like to discuss the  major
issue  raised  by Alcor Board members for their reluctance  to  offer  his
services:  Mike's inclination to take risks during suspensions that  could
lead  to  legal problems for Alcor.  As all of you know, there  have  been
incidents  during  two  Alcor suspensions in recent years  in  which  Mike
either took (or was alleged to have taken) certain actions that members of
the  board  all agree should *not* have been taken.  Alcor  board  members
have  expressed  their concern about the potential risk to Alcor  of  Mike
possibly  taking similar actions during future suspensions if he  was   to
provide suspension services through Alcor.

     Before  proceeding with my views on this issue, I want to  point  out
first that I am well informed about Mike's actions (and alledged  actions)
during these two suspensions, and second that I agree with the board  that
having  Mike  involved  in  future  Alcor  suspensions  will  subject  the
organization to a greater degree of risk with regard to such actions  than
Alcor would likely face with anyone on Alcor's suspension team.

    Protecting Alcor Against Risk Of Mike Taking Inappropriate Action
                           During A Suspension

     I  also think we can take several concrete steps to *lower* the  risk
of Mike taking inappropriate action during an Alcor suspension.  They  are
as follows:

     1.  There should be a precise understanding between Alcor  management
and  Mike Darwin regarding actions that he (and the memebers of his  team)
are prohibited from taking during a suspension.  This understanding should
be spelled out as explicitly as possible in the contract between Mike  and

     2.   Final authority regarding what major decisions to take during  a
suspension  in  the best interests of the patient  (other  than  technical
questions   regarding   his  or  her  suspension)  should  be   the   sole
responsibility of Alcor.

     3.   The  actions  of  Mike  (and  his  team)  should  be   monitored
continuously  by  a  high-level  Alcor staff  or  board  member  with  the
authority to intervene if it becomes necessary to prevent Mike from taking
any type of inappropriate action during a suspension.

     4.  In the contract between Mike (*Biopreservation, Inc*.) and Alcor,
Mike  should  include  a  disclaimer  to  hold  Alcor  harmless  for   any
inappropriate  actions taken by Mike and any member of his team  during  a
suspension.

     My assessment of the value (and potential benefits to Alcor) of  Mike
Darwin's  extraordinary experience, knowledge, and  communication  ability
should  *not* be considered as criticism in any way of Tanya Jones in  her
role as leader of Alcor's suspension team.  Tanya deserves a great deal of
credit for assuming responsibility in a critical area when no one else was
willing  to  do so.  She also deserves credit for her ongoing  efforts  to
prepare for future suspensions and for the resourcefulness and  resiliency
she's  demonstarted  in the suspensions in which she's  participated.   My
efforts  in  trying  to pursuade the board  to  consider  offering  Mike's
suspension services are motivated solely by my desire to see Alcor improve
and grow stronger, and are not meant to disparage the efforts of Tanya  or
any other Alcor staff member.

     In  any case, it is my opinion that the potential benefits of  Mike's
participation  in the suspension of those Alcor members who choose to  use
his services outweigh the potential risks to Alcor of his participation in
those suspensions.

     I also want to point out that--while I believe that Mike Darwin  (and
his suspension team) currently have advantages in experience, knowledge,
and  technical capability over Alcor's team--I do not necessarily  believe
that  Mike's  team  will be able to maintain these  advantages.   I  think
Alcor's  suspension  team will improve steadily as  it  gains  experience,
knowledge, and additional personnel.  I also think Mike is likely to  make
his  most valuable long-term contributions to cryonics  through  research,
and  that he is likely to spend less and less time on suspensions and  his
research  progresses,  and  as  others on his  suspension  team  gain  the
experience necessary to be able to replace him as team leader.

[End of Saul Kent quotation]

Obvious questions which come to mind are:

1.   Does Saul Kent now believe that the risks associated with Mr.  Darwin
are non-existent?  If so, Why?

2.  Why did Mr. Kent propose such rigid "risk reduction" constraints?

his team should be "monitored continuously by a high level Alcor staff  or
board  member with the authority to intervene".  Why did Mr. Kent  believe
this  last March?  If he no longer thinks this is true, what  changed  his
mind?  If Mr. Kent still believes that Mr. Darwin should be monitored, who
will be entrusted to do so, and how much responsibility and authority will
that person(s) have?

     Mr.   Kent   has  financial  interests  in   companies   other   than
Biopreservation,  with  which  Mr.  Darwin  is  associated  (21st  Century
Medicine and Cryovita Laboratories).  Dr. Steven Harris is a principal  in
Biopreservation.  How do Mr. Kent and Dr. Harris now plan to cope with the
risks  which  Mr.  Kent refers to?  Do Mr. Kent and  Dr.  Harris  plan  to
underwrite the risks associated with Mr. Darwin, *and if so how?*

     Mr.  Kent campaigned vigorously to put pressure on Alcor's  board  of
directors  in the hope of getting an Alcor/Biopreservation contract.   How
has  he presented the "risk factors" to members he has solicited?  If  Mr.
Kent  and  Dr.  Harris  now  believe that  the  risks  are  trivial,  what
guarantees do they offer to prospective Biopreservation clients?

     Alcor's  directors  believe that their first  responsibility  is  the
safety  of the patients in their care and members in need  of  suspension.
In  Mr. Kent's opinion, Biopreservation will offer a technically  superior
suspension.   How do Mr. Kent and Dr. Harris think that such a  suspension
will  benefit  a  patient who could be subjected to  risks  of  *permanent
death* days, months, or *years* after the fact?

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!

 -CM

----- End

Well Mr. Wowk, I'm not the only one still waiting for some answers.

Ever forward,

David

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cosenza                                           
PGP 2.3a Public Keys available by finger or ftp.netcom.com:/pub/dc/dcosenza
1264-bit Key fingerprint = BF 6C AA 44 C6 CA 13 3F  4A EC 0A 90 AE F3 74 6D
4096-bit Key fingerprint = A4 79 15 79 D2 73 7D 3F  34 88 2E ED 93 6F 46 B1
     "When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5390