X-Message-Number: 15253
From: 
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:26:10 EST
Subject: Platt Tit Tat

Debate is a delicate psychological game, the object seldom being to change 
the mind of your X*#! opponent, but to make your points and to influence 
readers or auditors on the margin. Part of this involves the impressions 
developed of what you and your opponents are like as people, even though in 
theory this shouldn't matter in a question of science. In "scientific" debate 
or discussion the object supposedly is simply to clarify facts and theories, 
not to win or lose. 

So a couple of remarks are in order. I have said that I am already 
superhuman, because of my restraint in the face of Platt's provocations. 
Platt has said his personal insults represent only 20% of his actual 
feelings. (I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Since he has already 
said or clearly implied that I am a fraud, liar, cheat, and thorough-going 
scoundrel, five times that bad would mean--what? A mass murderer or war 
criminal, maybe.) 

First, it shouldn't "really" matter much what Platt says or thinks. He is a 
lightweight. When he ventured into management of a cryonics 
organization--CryoCare--he drove it into the ground, or helped to do so. 
However, some people, and especially newcomers, are influenced by the last 
thing they hear or read, and by the vehemence of the advocacy--even though 
they can also be turned off by perceived unseemly squabbles. So, as time 
permits and inclination urges, I will engage him point by point and the 
readers will make their own judgments.

Second, turning the other cheek is often both unnatural and 
counterproductive. So I will now give my (partial and charitable) assessment 
of Platt as a person.  
Platt's sins (among others) are mainly those of which he accuses me, 
including selective reporting, selective quotations, ignoring of relevant 
evidence, and generally unprincipled spin-doctoring and self serving. 

On a more subjective level, I think his ancestry is questionable, his 
personal hygiene dubious, and his enmity more precious than the friendship of 
angels.

First and possibly most telling for some readers, yesterday I quoted one of 
Wakfer's posts, which included criticisms similar to mine of Alcor's 
vitrification claims. My point was that, even though Wakfer is not friendly 
to me or to CI, and has been close to INC and 21CM and Alcor, he nevertheless 
concurs that the current Alcor claims are exaggerated. In particular, he 
pointed out that elimination of ice has always been possible through 
alternative means such as chemical fixation, and so has vitrification, but 
that vitrification as a TOTAL solution has never been brought to fruition--up 
to and including today. Platt chose not to respond to this. Why not, P? Why 
is it erroneous to the point of villainy for me to say it, but Wakfer saying 
it deserves no comment?

Second, Platt says that ramping glycerol was proven long ago by Darwin and 
Leaf to be superior to one-pass at maximum concentration--using the 
Darwin/Leaf versions of each. Well, his idol, Darwin, had some things right 
and some things wrong, and one of the things he had right was his 
oft-repeated admonition that every cryonics organization should rely on its 
own observations or verifications, and not on the reported findings of anyone 
else, including himself. 

We take that advice seriously. Our sheep-head work was repeated and evaluated 
at the Kharkov institute for cryobiology, the world's largest, by Dr. Yuri 
Pichugin and colleagues. For the last year Dr. Pichugin has been a valued 
member of the California research team involving INC and 21CM, among others. 
The Ukrainian work did not include a comparison of ramping vs. one-pass, but 
we have done several of those comparisons at CI in the last year, and these 
were evaluated through microscopy at an independent Canadian lab associated 
with a major Canadian university. These have been reported in part on our web 
site. Comparing one-pass at 75% glycerol with stepped concentrations of 
10-20-40-75%, there was a possible marginal improvement with the latter, not 
statistically significant. Our research continues, on this and other 
questions.

And to stop for now yet again with the reminder: I am not denigrating the 
researchers nor Alcor's efforts--only the overreaching by Alcor in the P.R. 
arena. Overblown claims will not help them, or anyone, in the long run.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15253