X-Message-Number: 16550
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:47:27 -0700
From: Olaf Henny <>
Subject: Platt's Invention of CI Syndrome
References: <>

>Presumably Dr. Pichugin does have a thorough, inclusive background and his
>presence in CI research may change everything. In the past, however, I
>have seen the old "not invented here" syndrome.

Charles with all due respect, this is a bunch of *hui*, which you
have repeated ad nauseam in this forum and which, has been
refuted so many times, that representatives of CI seem to have
now given up to respond to it, thus finally giving you the last
say.  To try out a possible new procedure in house before
applying it to patients is to me reasonable and responsible.  To
have the results tested and verified by independent laboratories
makes them immune to any subjective bias the experimenter may
have had and accordingly more credible.  Furthermore both Robert
Ettinger and David Pascal have repeatedly stated their
willingness to verify (and obtain the right to adopt-)Alcor's
vitrification process, should details about the methodology and
the ice blockers be made available to them.  So far no luck.

Even though you have recently planted your foot squarely into
Alcor's Petrie dish, you seem to value their procedures well
above those of CI.  I have with all my reading of Cryonet
throughout the years not learned of one instance, where Alcor has
included the fruits of CI research.  So what makes Alcor
"inclusive" and CI not?

>Also I have seen the work
>of cryobiologists deprecated merely because they are cryobiologists, hence
>hostile to cryonics, hence untrustworthy. Conversely I have seen amazing
>(and, as it turned out, unwarranted) credulity toward the claims of Olga
>Visser, whose anti-scientific-establishment attitude seemed to resonate
>with the outlook at CI.

Olga Visser reported some very exciting results in reviving
rabbit hearts.  That she published these results gave her a good
measure of credibility.  It was commendable, that Robert Ettinger
and CI underwrote the considerable expense to bring her to the
States to duplicate the experiments here.  Among the observers,
who watched the attempts to repeat the experiments, was, watching
with baited breath, one Charles Platt, who is now accusing others
of gullibility.  If CI has extended the benefit of doubt to Ms. Visser
for longer than others, then it is presumably because of the enomous
importance a successful revival of the rabbit hearts would have had
for cryonics.  Sometimes the inattention to a minute detail can make
or break the succes of an experiment.  So giving a researcher the
chance to repeat the experiment several times could be important.

Quoting again:
"of Olga Visser, whose anti-scientific-establishment attitude
seemed to resonate with the outlook at CI."
Charles, it is this anti-scientific-establishment attitude, that
let Robert Ettinger found the cryonics movement in the first
place and "sucker you in, in the process", - at least
temporarily, now you seem more intent on spreading venom and
with specific intensity at CI.

>I think if CI had been more receptive to conventional cryobiology
>research, it might have chosen to start ramping perfusion concentration in
>1991 rather than in 2001, just to take one obvious example.

Drum roll... Charles announces the importance of ramping for the
twenty-twelfth time here on Cryonet.  The results of CI's
research as posted here repeatedly show very little difference.

Yes, I know, you will not accept anything, which comes out of
CI's labs.  You are voting against CI out of principle, the
reason for which I can't even guess.  And then there is Dr.
Pichugin, who voted (with his feet) *for* CI.
- - - I rest my case.
Best,
Olaf

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16550