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