X-Message-Number: 10882 Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:45:41 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #10876 - #10881 To Peter Merel: You bring up quite appropriately some of the things which we may still want, even when our nanotechnology reaches its completed state. (I once wrote a story for cryonicists about a disagreement about how the Solar System should be organized ie. where the planets should be put, etc). As for the therapy proposed here, I'll point out that the FDA is extraordinarily restrictive. It sounds better than the others on the list, but ultimately I (and anyone) would want some hard data about its effectiveness. I mean HARD DATA, not just testimonials or somebody's opinion, no matter how prominent or how high a rank. If Ken Barclay posts such data here on Cryonet, I will read it with great interest. There is a conflict between someone with cancer and those researching cancer, most especially if there is no known treatment for that patient's cancer. It would help such a situation if the FDA (this is admitted unlikely!) were to allow such patients to use such treatments, with the sole test of such treatment being not that it works but that it does not cause harm. And as many should know, our situation in respect to AGING is exactly the same as such a cancer patient: there is not fully effective treatment. Even for cryonics, the time taken to prove its effectiveness in anyone suspended now will take so long that we'd die of our diseases (if not of old age) if we insisted on waiting for proof. Some criteria which in many cases are good ones for assessing a medical treatment turn out in aging, incurable cancer, and several other problems to be not only poor ones but actively inhumane, rules to which we would not subject an animal. It would be nice if that problem were recognized and fixed. Well, maybe someday. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10882