X-Message-Number: 13346 From: "Paul Michael" <> References: <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #13338 - #13343 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:09:49 -0800 > Message #13339 > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:56:27 -0500 (EST) > From: Charles Platt <> > Subject: Research > > I was amused by Paul Michael's statement: Oh I AM glad, the tone of most of your posts had indicated that there was not much laughter in the Platt household. > > CI, to the best of my knowledge after a > > fairly close involvement with them over the last eight years or so, is > > not now and never has been, promoting itself as a research organisation. > > If I had written this, Mr. Ettinger might be quite upset about it. Paul > makes the technical distinction that it is the Immortalist Society, not > CI, that has involved itself in research; but in Mr. Ettinger's many posts > emphasizing his commitment to research, he has tended to blur this > distinction by using the word "we" when describing his commitment to (for > example) the sheep-head studies or the Olga Visser rat-heart experiment. > Incidentally, was it ever made clear whether the $25,000 for Ms. Visser > came from CI, the Immortalist Society, or Mr. Ettinger personally? > As I said The Immortalist group is an independent but associated organisation. Because Bob is very involved in both CI and the Immortalist he would seem to be perfectly entitled to use the Royal "We". As you are not, to my knowledge, a member of either group I imagine how we use our funds is not really any of your concern. I can state however that CI is finacially very sound and very well run. That's a fact. > Paul continues: > > > CI is wise to concentrate its efforts where they belong, looking after > > those entrusted to our care. > > The implication here seems to be that CryoCare (of which I remain > president at this time) has diverted valuable resources to research, > instead of maintenance of its patients. In fact, so far as I am aware, the > total contribution from CryoCare to research, during the past five years, > has been $1,000. CryoCare is an administrative organization, not a > research organization; and our patients are very well cared for, now as > always. > When I met your other President, Ben Best, in September 1999, he seemed to be looking for other options with regard to storage of your Patients. I am happy to hear that things have improved for you. This is not meant in any sarcastic way. > > Most importantly of all, underlined by some unfortunate recent events, > > IT IS STILL IN BUSINESS. > > While CryoCare, of course, is waiting for a new service provider. Mr. > Michael's point seems to be that it's better to stay in business, > providing a bare-bones service, than to suspend operations after providing > a more comprehensive service including remote standby and the > sophisticated medical and perfusion capabilities which I mentioned in my > previous message. To some, these capabilities might seem to be an > important part of patient care. However, Mr. Michael may indeed turn out > to be right; we'll have to wait and see what the revived CryoCare > patients, and CI patients, have to say about this. > > --Charles Platt > My point is: It is better to stay in business - period. Nothing more, nothing less. The new service provider would, I think, need to last a little longer than five years at any rate. Paul Michaels Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13346