X-Message-Number: 15696
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:30:03 -0800
From: Olaf Henny <>
Subject: CI Bashing
References: <>

First of all, I want to congratulate Robert Ettinger and David
Pascal to their mature and measured responses to the hostile
attacks from Jeff Grimes, but also to their restrained reactions
to the  our method is better than yours and you should learn from
us  type of patronizing by members of other cryonics providers
and research groups.

The fact is, that as much  publishable  standards and peer review
is strutted about, NOBODY has so far had the guts to even try to
publish anything under the heading of Cryonics in any scientific
journal.  So let  cut the crap.  Obtaining sheep heads from
slaughter houses for freezing may not be up to the standards of
publishable scientific research, but it is much closer to real
life cryonics, than hippocampal slice research in  controlled lab
conditions .  Make no mistake, basic research, in which all
variables are strictly controlled and recorded is indispensable
and absolutely necessary, but when my head will eventually be
prepared for suspension, it will bear much closer resemblance to
Bob s slaughterhouse-obtained sheep heads, than to Paul s
carefully prepared hippocampal slices.  CI's sheephead findings
will probably be more important for the preparation of my own
head, than much of the tauted sterile lab work.

The elitism of controlled basic research with publishable results
must eventually give way to the shirt sleeve approach of applied
science, where the insights gained from basic research will be
put to practical use under  field conditions .

The continuous CI bashing, which is taking place in this forum
reminds me of a school yard, where all the kids line up behind
the biggest bully, because they feel safer with him, than against
him, with the added benefit, that with the biggest crowd you
stand to get the biggest applause for lashing out at the  little
guy .

CI s approach may not include the very latest [and yet
unpublished :)] standard of cryonics research, but their
infrastructure solution, with the use of undertakers for basic
preparation and early perfusion and cooling, makes a whole lot of
sense to me in terms of prevention of ischemic damage, which, if
nanotech is the eventual technique of recovery, is IMHO much more
harmful then fracturing and displacement.

To the elitists who scuff at CI,  I can only point out, that
their methods are every bit as unproven as CI s or a rooster s
egg for that matter.

Best,
Olaf

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15696