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