X-Message-Number: 6948
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CI / CryoSpan

I'm traveling and have very little time online, but I must just respond to
Bob Ettinger when he suggests that we "push CryoSpan" to our members. 
CryoCare derives no financial advantage and no other benefit from our
members choosing one storage provider over another. To each new member we
explain the option: they can choose CI or CryoSpan. We also explain the
different fee structures involved, and we list the respective advantages
of each provider. In the case of CI, we mention that they are located in a
zone of zero earthquake risk and have a very long history as a stable
cryonics organization. 

I am aware that no one has chosen CI over CryoSpan (yet!). I believe 
there are some obvious reasons for this:

1. Most of our members signed up before CI became available as an option. 
As I am sure Bob is well aware, people are always reluctant to make 
alterations to cryonics paperwork. Simple inertia could be preventing 
some people from switching to a different storage provider.

2. Shortly after CI became available to CryoCare members, CryoSpan
followed through on its promise to build underground, reinforced concrete
vaults to protect its dewars from earthquake damage. The earthquake risk
had been the #1 disadvantage of CryoSpan. Many of our members were
concerned about it. Indeed, this was a major reason why I felt,
originally, we should offer a second choice for storage. But I believe the
vaults do in fact provide reliable protection, and CryoSpan has thus taken
care of its biggest former defect. 

3. Paul Wakfer supplies me with illustrated articles for our newsletter. 
I think these articles present his business very well, and reassure our
members that they have no reason to switch. Naturally, if Bob would like
to solicid their business, he is welcome to send me articles describing
developments at CI. Perhaps I have been remiss in that I have not asked
him for something of this kind. But certainly I would be glad to publish
anything he sends me. (And I wouldn't edit it without his permission!)

4. I am typing this in a hotel room and cannot check my records, but I 
believe neuropreservation at CI costs CryoCare members more than 
neuropreservation at CryoSpan--NOT because CI's prices are higher (in 
fact, they are lower) but because CryoCare insists that it must be 
possible to relocate any patient from one storage provider to another in 
case of emergency; and this means that the patient must have sufficient 
money in an independent fund. Our Independent Patient Care Fund provides 
this service, and Paul Wakfer at CryoSpan is willing to accept the IPCF 
as a provider of ongoing payments for CryoCare patients. Bob was not 
willing to work on this basis (as I recall), because CI has a policy that 
all payments are nonrefundable. Therefore, to be at CI, a neuropatient 
must pay CI *and* have a deposit in the IPCF for "insurance." Hence the 
price differential. I know a couple of people who talked of switching 
their storage provider to CI at one time (before CryoSpan built the 
vaults), but they didn't have enough total insurance to cover the extra 
cost. 

Once again I emphasize that CryoCare has not, and will never recommend 
one service provider over another. We believe in fact it would be legally 
unwise to do so, since we would in effect be endorsing the future 
performance of a service provider.

--Charles Platt

PS. Where research is concerned, Bob and I obviously have to agree to 
differ. 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6948