X-Message-Number: 16375
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:41:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Platts Post 16357
References: <>

 May 28, 2001
 From: Michael Riskin
 In Cryonet 16357, Charles Platt writes " I quit from Alcor long ago
 I discovered what I considered to be a misuse of patient funds ( a
 situation which was rectified subsequently )".
 I have three problems with that statement:
 1: ( Factual): Charges had been made by several Alcor members that
 accused the management of misuse of funds, including the words 
 " cover-up, embezzlement  and hemmorhaging of funds".
 Being a CPA, the then Alcor ombudsman, and concerned Alcor member of
ten years 
 duration I conducted an audit of the funds in question. (Actually, it
 the management of the *endowment fund* that was questioned and not
patient care 
 funds). Results and information about that  audit may be found in
 #'s 1318 and 0014.42 . 

 While the audit did illuminate areas in which accounting and
 procedures could be improved, there was no evidence whatsover of
 wrongdoing or misuse of funds. At my initiation, a further step was
 which was to engage the services of an independent certified public
 firm. They performed a certified audit and wrote an unqualified
professional opinion 
 attesting to the accuracy of the Alcor books and records.
 I believe Mr. Platt knows of all of the above. I therefore find his
 repetition of old, unproven, and fully rebutted charges against Alcor,
 particularly without presenting the entire fact base, to be a partisan
 portrayal of history.
 2: ( Mr Platts Subjective Conclusions ): The impression that Charles
 leaves the reader with is that he left solely because of the "funds"
 issue ( he mentions no other reason). I submit that there were many
 other reasons, also well documented in the cryonet archives. Again, by
 omitting other context information, the erroneous "fund misuse" charge
 gains inappropriate and additional historical strength. 
 3: ( Mr. Platts Spin ): By stating that the situation was " rectified
 subsequently" serves to imply and fortify the erroneous notion that
 there was in fact something wrong that was later fixed. That
 is in direct contradiction with the subsequent facts as noted above,
 and, is incorrect as it stands anyway since there could be no
 " rectified subsequently " as there was nothing to rectify. More
 would have been " disproven subsequently", but then again that phrasing 
 bears no agenda value.

It is important to note that the persons who publicly accused Alcor 
management of serious criminal acts refused to retract or even modify 
their both unproven and disproven ( and reckless in my opinion ) 
accusations, even in the light of materially substantial, if not 
overwhelming contradictory evidence. I still consider that refusal, 
to this day, to be act of ethical dishonesty.

Michael Riskin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16375