X-Message-Number: 9590
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 03:50:02 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Motives

        Bob Ettinger asks several questions in 
yesterday's posting on Cryonet (9570) regarding the
motives of Bill Faloon and myself in investing in 
21st Century Medicine (21CM).

        Bob first advances the notion that we have
"disparate aims" in funding 21CM that must, somehow,
be "reconciled".  That is not my view of things at all.

        The ultimate goal of 21CM is to achieve
suspended animation.  That's certainly no secret. We've
been very open about it ever since we launched 21CM,
and will continue to be open about it in future 
fundraising efforts.  

        Every research project 21CM has conducted, and
is planning to conduct,  is part of an overall plan to achieve
suspended animation.  Our cerebral resuscitation program, 
for example, deals with reducing damage to the brain, which
is essential for the achievement of suspended animation, and
which also has enormous potential for saving the lives of many
people who would otherwise die in accidents and from other 
causes.

        Similarly, our organ cryopreservation programs are
important for the achievement of suspended animation, and have
the potential of saving the lives of people who need organ 
transplants.  Certainly, cryopreservation of the brain is the most
important of these projects for suspended animation, but research
in kidney and heart preservation will likely lead to data and insights
that will prove valuable in preserving the brain, and vice versa.  One
question to answer is the extent to which there are similarities in cryo- =

preserving different organs, and whether we can come up with an 
all-purpose protocol for the preservation of entire organisms.

        We have strong evidence that underlying, fundamental
techniques and processes, such as vitrification, may be critical in
success with *all* types of cryopreservation.  If this proves to be true,
we may find financial opportunities in a variety of markets outside 
our primary areas of focus.  In any case, we expect scientific 
success in the cryopreservation of any one organ to help in 
learning to preserve other organs.  Such successes would, of
course, lead to substantial revenues, further investment in 
21CM, and greater prestige for the company.

        Success in the cryopreservation of any organ will also
lead to improved techniques in cryonics.  In your posting, Bob, you 
seem concerned that we might "burn" 21CM funds for suspended 
animation research that might prove especially difficult to achieve, 
and which might be contrary to the interests of some investors.

        I don't see that happening.  Any success we have in
cryopreserving any organ, or in developing advanced generic 
cryopreservation techniques, will likely be applicable to cryonics, 
with royalities going to 21CM.  And we won't have to wait until we 
achieve suspended animation to garner revenues from the use 
of 21CM advances for cryonics.  As you well know Bob, cryonics 
companies preserve people with unperfected methods  I'm con- 
vinced that improved cryonics methods based upon research 
published in science and medical journals, and backed by a 
well-funded suspended animation research program, will lead 
to major growth in cryonics. 21CM revenues from cryonics will 
continue to increase as cryonics methods are improved. When 
suspended animation is finally achieved, of course, these 
revenues will almost certainly skyrocket!

        Bob, it is inappropriate for you to reach a conclusion 
(as you have done in your posting), based upon Paul Wakfer's 
postings on Cryonet, that Paul "appears now to have been 
exploited" in his dealings with 21CM.  At best, you know a 
small fraction of one side of a long and complex story.  
That's not enough Bob...not nearly enough!

        You then ask (presumably, as one of the "nasties" 
you postulate in your posting) whether people who invest in 
21CM will find that their money ends up "SUBSTITUTING for 
Kent/Faloon money, rather than supplementing it."  This 
question is also inappropriate because the answer to it 
should *not* play a role in whether someone chooses to 
invest in 21CM or not.  That decison should be based upon 
one's assessment of the company's capabilities, manage- 
ment, planning and prospects for success, *not* the 
future investment plans of other investors.

        Your question is also clearcut evidence of your
lack of knowledge of Bill and myself.

        We're currently investing about $1 million a year in
21CM.  We're doing so, as you correctly noted earlier in your
posting, in order to save our own lives. Given that motivation,
which you apparently believe is true, I find it difficult to under-
stand your charge that we may withdraw our funding  from 
21CM after others invest in the company.  Do you really think  
Bill and I are satisfied with $1million a  year funding for 21CM?  
Do you really think we wouldn't like to see it raised to $2 million, 
$3 million or $10 million a year?  If so, you know nothing 
about either of us!

        You talk about making "hardball calculations" about
whether to invest in 21CM or not. Any calculations you make 
about 21CM will be worthess without further investigation of our 
company, our staff, and our management.  Again, I invite  you to 
visit 21st Century Medicine in order to learn more about the
company.  I believe you owe it to us, to yourself, and to your 
fellow members in CI.

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine   

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9590