X-Message-Number: 1364
Date: 27 Nov 92 05:36:04 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: CRYONICS: REPLY TO KEITH HENSON MESSAGE #1354

I haven't responded to one of Keith Henson's postings for a long time
because of my disdain for Keith's habit of misinterpreting and misusing
what I and others say.  I've decided to respond to Keith's reply to the
questions Courtney Smith asked of Keith (in msg 1344) because I find
some of Keith's replies especially disturbing.

In a previous posting, Keith had charged that Courtney and Bob Kreuger
had resigned from the Alcor Financial Advisory Committee because they
were embarrassed by the third member of the committee, Eric Klien. 
Courtney responded by denying that he or Bob resigned for that reason
and asked Keith who he had heard this from.  Keith replied that he heard
about it "indirectly from Michael Riskin".  When I asked Michael Riskin
on the phone about this, he told me that it is "abolutely untrue" that
he had ever told Keith or anyone else that Courtney and Bob resigned
from the committee because Eric was embarrassing them.  

Instead of apologizing to Courtney for posting a false statement with
regard to the reason for his resigning from the committee, Keith then
proceeded to tell Courtney that he should have been embarrassed by Eric
and to assert that Courtney "couldn't admit embarrassment if you were
standing in it up your neck."  The problem with Keith's response is that
he attacks Courtney for not being embarrassed by Eric as well as for not
admitting that he was embarrassed by Eric. Since you pretend to be a
mind-reader in your posting, Keith, which is it,: Was Courtney "wrong"
in not being embarrassed by Eric or for not admitting he was
embarrassed by Eric?  Keith then goes on to suggest that Courtney may
be incapable of admitting embarrassment, a presumption so devoid of
evidence that I can only characterize it as "embarrassing".

Later on, in his response to Courtney's reminder that one of the reasons
he quit the committee was because "actions were not being taken to
increase the yield in the funds", Keith minimizes the value of a good
rate of return from Alcor's investments by contending that, since most
of the growth in the Patient Care Fund has come from monies provided by
new patients, "a few percentage points difference in the investment
yield gets swamped out if you assume continued growth in the number of
patients at the rate we have seen over the past few years."

Keith appears to be willing to forego the financial benfits of "a few
percentage points difference in the investment yield" of the Patient
Care Fund because he believes that the costs of caring for new patients
are "relatively small" because "the average cost per patient has gone
way down due to economies of scale." Unfortunately, Keith leaves out
the reason he and I and everyone else in Alcor are signed up to be
suspended...the possibility of being restored to life in the future. 
Since, for most patients, the costs of reanimation (or attempts at
reanimation) are likely to be derived entirely from the Patient Care
Fund, it is imperative that this fund be as large as possible.  We have
no idea how much it will cost to reanimate patients from cryonic
suspension, but considering the severity of the damage we inflict upon
patients with today's primitive freezing techniques, we dare not
underestimate the costs of reanimation.  Additional unknown costs, which
also should not be underestimated, involve the patient's re-entry into
society,  I find it astonishing that a director of Alcor, in discussing
the financial condition of Alcor, should fail to consider the costs of
achieving the primary purpose for which Alcor exists 

I also am astonished that Keith is apparently unconcerned about
protecting Alcor's assets from the threats of litigation and government
intervention.  For five long years, I have been advocating moving a
major portion of Alcor's liquid assets into an offshore bank, an
extremely simple procedure, which would offer a significant degree of
protection for these assets.  During this period, I have yet to hear a
single reason for not taking this important step from any Alcor
director, officer, or member, and yet it remains undone.  And now Keith
blithly says that he doesn't think the protection of Alcor assets
"rates in the top dozen concerns of Alcor"  That's hard for me to
believe, Keith.  Will other Alcor directors please comment?

Keith suggests that it's okay for the Patient Care Fund to pay "a little
more now" because "it is in good shape compared to the operating fund
and can afford it."  I think Keith is profoundly mistaken here. I do not
think the Patient Care Fund is in "good shape" now, and I think the
operating fund is in poor shape because of mismanagement by directors
such as Keith Henson.  Keith's cavalier attitude towards The Patient
Care Fund is one of the reasons I feel so strongly that patient care
should be handled by an organization other than Alcor.

Keith's caracterization of Alcor members who oppose him politically as
the "lunatic fringe" is totally inappropriate for a director of Alcor
and his failure to renounce his use of that term disqualifies him, in
my opinion, from continuing to serve in that office.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1364