X-Message-Number: 10402
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:57:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: ???

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> You say that you are not interested in the scientific analysis of 
> just what is essential to preserving us. 

Thomas, I have no idea what you're talking about. And since you have not
quoted my original text, it is difficult for me to find out which
statement of mine you seem to be misinterpreting. (I do not archive

> to think that full suspended animation will arrive AND you will be
> able to take advantage of it, without actually having to know or 
> think about it. 

Although I never had any special interest in, or aptitude for, biology, I
have done what I can to educate myself in this area. I have participated
in three human cryonics cases. I've read every paper that Greg Fahy has
written (so far as I know). I attended (but did not complete) one of Mike
Darwin's training courses. I have his huge handbook on standby practice
and technique, which I paid to photocopy myself. And so on, and so on. I 
know a reasonable amount about the state of the art, and have proven my 
interest in it.

> to work out how to use the technology available. But I regard it as
> stupid in the extreme to refuse to consider what the possibilities
> and the requirements of revival might be. 

This is highly speculative, isn't it? I would suggest that at this point, 
we simply have to do the best we can.

> Or are you a cryonicist any longer? Perhaps not. Then none of this
> means anything to you, and you are merely getting some kind of 
> twisted joy out of watching us as we squirm. If so, you get to work
> out these issues in your own soul. 

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Are you replying to 
something I wrote on CryoNet, or are you referring to the fact that I 
asked not to receive your own little zine, Periastron, anymore? If the 
latter is a factor, and I offended you, we should discuss that via email, 
not here.

In the meantime I remain personally interested in all aspects of cryonics.
I spent countless hours earlier this year trying to negotiate the best
possible arrangements with CryoCare's service providers, one of whom quit
on us unexpectedly. I bought $10,000 in shares in 21st Century Medicine
when it was founded (representing one-quarter of my personal savings at
that time), and have visited the labs often. I was on standby in the
Timothy Leary case for more than six weeks. I have twice tried to write
salable books about cryonics, one of which was accepted for publication
shortly before the publisher unfortunately declared bankruptcy. I will be
at CryoCare's annual meeting and the 21st Century event that follows it. I
attended both of Alcor's Technology Conferences, and was the only person
to write up a detailed report on the Visser fiasco, including a complete
history of her involvement in cryonics. I was involved in the abortive
negotiations to establish BioTransport with Alcor. I continue as President
of CryoCare, and currently also do tasks such as CryoCare's billing. I
write our newsletter (most of it) and see that it is mailed. I have
written software simulating the relationship between growth and probable
case load, including the probability of simultaneous cases--the only time
this issue has been formally addressed, so far as I know. I have also
written software to facilitate CryoCare signups, and I expect to write
billing software. I write a regular column for Alcor's CRYONICS magazine.
I should have thought you would know all of this; in which case you could
see that I am obviously totally committed to cryonics, even though in its
current state I fear that it is not always capable of preserving patients
meaningfully. Our task of course is to improve that situation. 

Now, if you have a SPECIFIC problem with something I said, let's discuss 
that rather than making a blanket accusation which simply seems bizarre 
to me.

> And besides, why do you think I have been sending you copies of 

You have received all issues of CryoCare Report. The one containing the 
electron micrographs was number 4, published 1995. If you didn't take it 
to Australia with you, I'll send you another copy. But I'm sure you had a 
chance to look at those pictures when they first appeared.

> But then from your talk elsewhere you'd probably be perfectly happy
> if such people were just quietly cremated.

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. It's true that if 
someone has been left sitting for, say, four days after death well above 
freezing temperature, with no treatment of any kind, I would regard that 
person's future chances as doubtful at best. But if that person were a 
CryoCare member who had requested cryopreservation under ANY 
circumstances, I would feel a moral and legal obligation to honor those 
wishes. Likewise, when I was an Alcor member, I helped in a case where 
the patient had been shot in the head, after which he experienced 24 
hours of ischemic damage at the mortuary, and his brain was cut into 
pieces and placed in a plastic bag that was stowed in his abdominal 
cavity. That person was nevertheless frozen, because his documents 
requested it. I wrote about this case in Alcor's magazine, CRYONICS. 
Presumably you read my report at the time.

At this point, Thomas, I would say that I am far more actively involved 
in cryonics than you are.

Now: what, precisely, is your point?

--Charles Platt

PS. I note you always close with "long life to all." To me, this is a 
dubious salutation. Personally I want a long life only if my faculties 
are intact. I don't know if this is implicit in your statement or not. 
But if you are advocating long life under any conceivable circumstances, 
this could be one source of our disagreement.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10402