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