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