X-Message-Number: 15552
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Is there a hidden agenda behind Jeff Grimes' questions?
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:06:41 -0800

In Message #15545 Jeff Grimes in his  Subject: Hello? repeated his questions
in a more succinct and numbered form.

I don't feel my question about the underlying issue behind these questions
have been answered either so I am going to apply "triage" by addressing his
questions from a survival priority perspective.

Maybe this will demonstrate more clearly what I have been trying to get
across about cryonics' details versus cryonics' big picture:

Jeff wrote a summary of his question in part of his posting:

>
> 1. Why does CI use glycerol that is so concentrated, it is more toxic than
any protectant used elsewhere?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "toxic" FOR YOU than certain death.
Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 2. Is CI concerned that since the solution "does not equilibrate," some
tissues are heavily loaded, causing toxic damage, while other tissues
probably are not protected properly?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "damaging" FOR YOU than certain death.
Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 3. Which of these tissues was measured with 26 percent glycerol?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "measurable" FOR YOU than certain
death.  Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 4. Which were examined at the Canadian lab?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more simple to "examine" FOR YOU than
certain death.  Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 5. How many pictures were taken in Canada, and did CI publish only the
best?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "picture perfect" FOR YOU than certain
death.  Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 6. Since 75 percent glycerol is a vitrification-strength protectant, why
does the CI site still suggest that other organizations are the ones who
vitrify, and why does it suggest that the procedure is dangerous?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "dangerous" FOR YOU than certain death.
Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> 7. And my perennial favorite, rephrased: Does ANYONE at CI know, how long
it took for the past four patients to move from deathbed to lab?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "timely" FOR YOU than certain death.
Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> Now, if CI does not wish to answer some or all of these questions, please
let's have a conclusive statement saying so, and this will save a lot of
time, because I can stop asking the questions. On the other hand, if CI is
willing to answer the questions, can we have an answer?

Is some chance better than no chance?  You are not signed up for ANY
cryonics right now.  Nothing is more "time wasting" FOR YOU than certain
death.  Why not sign up first and then argue about details later?

> Which is it going to be?

Well, Jeff, which is it going to be RIGHT NOW while you are STILL alive and
CAN choose?

At ANY MOMENT you could die due to car accident or heart attack, etc.  If
cryonics fundamentally makes sense to you (and if it doesn't, why would you
even ask these questions in this forum?  Hmmm?), why delay your decision
while waiting for answers about mere details?

My suggestion is to get on the cryonics lifeboat NOW.  If you have to bail
water because of holes you think might be in the hull, don't fail to get on
the only lifeboat (cryonics) on your Titanic, because your Titanic is headed
for the iceberg of CERTAIN death right now.  You don't know when it may be
too late.

Some chance is better than no chance.

The rest is secondary.

CI people have been answering your questions in this forum for over two
weeks.  I suspect that some of them do not believe that you are
authentically wanting answers as you continue to raise the goalpost in terms
of what you consider adequate detail in the answers already offered.  That
is an old debating tactic after all.

YOU may be certain your questions are sincere and warrant the degree of
detail you continue to demand but your motives are being called into
question.  Never-satisfied, ongoing insincere questioning could be a tactic
from someone who doesn't want answers but wishes to damage the reputation of
cryonics and thereby dissuade others from joining for hidden reasons.

So MY question to you is if you are seriously asking these questions, why
have you not yet secured membership with SOME cryonics organization so that
whether the details you seek are acceptable or not intellectually, you will
have SOME CHANCE OF PERSONAL SURVIVAL?

As long as you DON'T do this, your questions are easily perceived as those
of someone NOT YET CONVINCED that SOME chance is better than CERTAIN death,
at least in the eyes of those like myself who take the view that death is
CERTAIN unless you take the only chance I am aware of that MIGHT bypass it.

And if THAT is the REAL issue, let's discuss THAT instead of pretending we
are primarily dealing with other questions of supposed vital import.

If cryonics were highly expensive, you would have a possible reason for
delay.  But it isn't.  Most people can join up for about the same money they
would spend on a pizza once a month.

If you are indigent, you would have a credible reason for delay.  Cryonics
is cheap but it isn't entirely free (yet).  But the issue of cost has not
been raised by you as a reason for your delay.

So now your motives are called into question, at least in my own mind.  If
you agree that cryonics might work, why are you delaying to take personal
action WHILE seeking what you consider sufficiently detailed answers to your
questions ABOUT THE PERIPHERAL ISSUES?

Talk is cheap.

I have to wonder if you are serious.  Actions speak louder than words.

It isn't as if you were someone who just learned about cryonics and then had
some questions about the reasons for considering it.  You have already
demonstrated by your postings that you seem quite familiar with the concept
as a whole, more so than I certainly was ten years ago.

You see,  I suspect that this neverending demand for more and more detailed
answers is a smokescreen for the REAL agenda.  I suspect that you actually
are trying to do something that can't be done.  You are trying to prove that
you already KNOW that future technology will NEVER be able to succeed with
the current form of cryonic suspension.

But I suspect that you clearly understand that you CAN'T prove this (since
you are not God and cannot perfectly know what will never be possible in the
future).  And therefore I suspect you are using this ongoing questioning
tactic (of always demanding more detail no matter what answers you receive)
in order to create the impression in the eyes of others that your hidden
premise that cryonics can't ever work (thank you, God) is somehow accurate.

You have already implied that there are secrets and brought into question
the motives of some CI members.

Now I am questioning YOUR motives and asking if indeed you have this hidden
agenda behind your overt questioning.  I am wondering if you are sincere or
if this whole thing is a propaganda tactic.

And I keep returning to the question of wondering why, if you understand the
big picture and are not overtly against cryonics, you still have not signed
up?  The effort you have taken in these posting imply SOME kind of
motivation and it would have taken much less effort already to have signed
up yourself.

Everyone who has already signed up for cryonics (like my friends and family)
evidently find the primary premise of cryonics sufficiently compelling as
is.  The answers to our questions were adequately addressed for us by
understanding that SOME chance is better than CERTAIN DEATH.  The cost is
cheap.  Filing my taxes was much more difficult than the paperwork for
cryonics.

Compared to the alternative, signing up for cryonics seems to me to be a "no
brainer".

In my opinion, you seem to be either missing the boat on the big picture or
have a hidden agenda.

So which is it?

Or am I just dead wrong on this whole thing?

George Smith
CI member
Cryonics: Some chance is better than NO chance when it comes to survival.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15552