X-Message-Number: 16363
From: "Graham  Hipkiss" <>
Subject: European Cryonics
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:28:31 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01C0E715.81578560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

To Charles Platt,

Thanks for taking an interest in European Cryonics, it is appreciated.


I agree with you that your criticism, expressed on cryonet, mainly directed 
against CI, which some find to be purely negative, is probably constructive and 
may contribute to necessary improvements in suspension proceedures.


However, I am still considering a transfer from Alcor to CI, although I have 
been an active member of Alcor UK since 1994.  Now that CI use a ramped glycerol
perfusion and we have a CI standby team being organised, it would seem to be 
the best choice for people in the UK. Maybe, Alcor is the superior because they 
use stabilising medications which should be advantageous and CI, at present, do 
not, but they are useless unless you have people around to apply them quickly.  
As Alcor's UK and European membership shrinks we have fewer people here to rely 
on and Alcor's current standby requirement of 5 days notice and $35,000 up 
front, is a joke.


Ever since I joined Alcor I've heard members deride CI saying, 'they just rely 
on an undertaker to collect you after you are pronounced and ship you off to the
US, whereas, Alcor provide an effective suspension'. It appears that here in 
the UK that situation has been reversed.
    

I would appreciate your (and others) comments on my options given that I only 
have two, as my multiple myeloma history suggests it would not be wise to hang 
around waiting for another organisation, whether it be Kryos or a European 
group.

Graham Hipkiss

 

------=_NextPart_000_00A3_01C0E715.81578560

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16363