X-Message-Number: 15334 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:20:52 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: David Pascal I had some hope of reaching an understanding with David Pascal of CI, since in the past we exchanged email that suggested he places factual accuracy ahead of organizational loyalty. Since a reply to his 40 kbyte CryoNet rant would probably consume another 40 kbytes and would lead to further replies, and replies to those replies, I suggested to David that he and I could talk on the phone as a more efficient way of examining and trying to resolve differences. I would then state here any necessary revision of my past statements re CI. He felt this seemed secretive, so I offered to tape the call, pay for a transcription, and make that publicly available to anyone who cared. He still seemed unwilling, and I have had no response to my last email on the topic, possibly because he's suffering a nasty virus infection right now. But, I doubt that the phone call will take place. Maybe Uncle Bob told David not talk to me. Who knows? In the meantime I promised him that I would include a note here regarding the dog-brain experiment conducted by Darwin, Harris, and others, which I described as an attempt to replicate CI protocol and compare it with the protocol that Darwin himself was using on human cases at that time. David insists that Darwin did not accurately replicate CI protocol, and therefore the experiment was invalid. However, someone else has told me that the experiment actually replicated the protocol being used by Pichugin in the sheep-head research funded by CI; and that, in turn, had been promoted as an attempt to replicate the human protocol being used by CI, to measure its effectiveness. This raises a number of possibilities: 1. Darwin was right. 2. Pichugin wasn't using the same protocol that CI was using on human patients, in which case Darwin's experiment is not a fair comparison. 3. CI may not have a sufficiently reliable record of its treatment of human cases at that time, in which case it's all a moot point. Since CI did not collect much data then (maybe it does now; I don't know) I tend toward option 3. I have never seen a cooling curve for a CI case, for instance, which would be a fairly basic requirement for any meaningful comparison. Unfortunately, trying to resolve this issue would be quite difficult, since Darwin has personal problems currently that would not allow him much time or inclination to go digging through old files, and I remain skeptical that I could find out (beyond reasonable doubt) whether Pichugin was accurately replicating CI human protocol anyway. The bottom line is, I chose to trust Darwin's work because he has a long record of getting his facts right in cryonics. This was my judgment call. Anyone else who reads about this research should make up his/her own mind about its credibility, bearing in mind the pros and cons listed above. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15334