X-Message-Number: 15649
From: 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:28:32 EST
Subject: Lemler

Yesterday I was a bit too easy on Jerry Lemler, Alcor's psychiatrist, who 
introduced himself, made some nice comments on objectives, expressed 
confidence that he and Alcor would use benefactors' money to good effect, and 
incidentally dismissed my criticism of Fred's announcement "Vitrification 
Arrives" by labeling it "political" and saying it should not be taken 
seriously as scientific criticism.

I imagine readers will have noticed that his criticism of my criticism was 
essentially purely ad hominem, no attempt whatever at factual engagement, 
since "answering him point by point would largely be a misuse of our time." 
In other words, he used epithets and nothing more. 

I have at times--after protracted discussion--said something similar about 
Grimes and one or two others, with the shoe on the other foot. The difference 
is in the background and the details, and those differences are very large 
indeed.

Again, the gist of my criticism of Fred's announcement is this:

The evidence for Fred's degree of optimism is scattered and indirect. In 
particular, no animal brain has been treated by Alcor's current procedure, 
rewarmed from liquid nitrogen temperature, and evaluated--not by anyone, 
anywhere, ever. Not by Alcor and not by Alcor's consultants.

Does that mean they made a bad decision, or they are acting in bad faith? Of 
course not. They are good people doing their best. They believe that 
experience and theory point to a probability that the current Alcor 
procedure--at least if applied under ideal conditions--will result in 
vitrification and much less damage overall than Alcor's prior procedure. 

But the fact remains that not only has there been no independent 
verification, but not even an initial finding by the Alcor consultants 
themselves, based on direct testing. Not a single microphoto, for example, 
after rewarming a mammalian brain from liquid nitrogen. And of course neither 
we nor anyone else can test their procedure, since essential elements of it 
are secret.

If anyone thinks it is a quibble to want direct test results, rather than 
relying on opinions based on theory and on related but different experience, 
he just has not read much scientific literature, especially in the life 
sciences. It is commonplace for researchers to report conflicting results, 
even when there have been thousands of studies, e.g. on vitamin C. After a 
half century, there are still disagreements on the best way to cryopreserve 
some of the simplest systems, such as sperm or blood. And of course, in 
science, no amount of prestige or "expertise" is allowed to substitute for 
proof. Not even an Einstein or a Newton can persuade merely on the strength 
of his reputation, and the Alcor consultants are not yet quite in that 
category. (I hope they get there some day.) 

Once more, CI procedures will continue to be those that we have found best, 
among those we have tested, as evaluated by independent professionals. We 
have a large research agenda, and changes will be instituted as warranted. 

And another word about Lemler. Possibly he is more of a scientist than most 
psychiatrists; I don't know. But he seems peculiarly inept as a psychologist. 
Relations between CI and Alcor have had ups and downs over the years, but I 
still regard many Alcor members as friends, including Fred and Linda, despite 
recent frictions. After all, in the Congress even Republicans and Democrats 
can be friends. If Lemler's remarks were intended to be result-oriented, one 
can only wonder what results he had in mind.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15649