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