X-Message-Number: 17521
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: clarifications

I am not yet an Alcor member, but Bob Ettinger already implies I am
somehow speaking on behalf of Alcor. This is ridiculous.

Bob writes, "Maybe he won't be as bad for them [Alcor] as he was for
CryoCare." Bob is well aware that CryoCare enjoyed rapid growth and a lot
of loyalty from its members. Unfortunately our service providers chose to
cease providing service. Our members waited for Fred Chamberlain to set
up an alternate service, but Fred failed to follow through. After that,
our two patients, both of whom were properly funded, were transferred to
Alcor, and more than half of our members switched to Alcor. So far as I
can tell, between one-quarter and one-third of CryoCare members never
changed their cryopreservation arrangements, even though CryoCare warned
them repeatedly that it could not continue to provide service.

While I was vice-president of CryoCare, the organization concluded a
successful negotiation with Bob, for CI to provide storage services for
our members. While I was editor of CryoCare Report, I provided an open
forum in which Bob accepted an invitation to debate the merits of CI
storage vs. CryoSpan storage. This debate was scrupulously fair.

I have to conclude that Bob's animosity has nothing to do with my work for
CryoCare, but is entirely rooted in resentments which began with his
embarrassment over the fiasco of the Visser affair and continued as a
result of posts I have made as an individual, on CryoNet, questioning CI
procedures. In other words, this is personal animosity, totally separate
from organizational issues.

In the future, anything that I may write on behalf of Alcor will be
identified as such, and will be approved by Alcor before it is published.
Anything I write as an individual, including posts on CryoNet, such as
this post, will be my own responsibility--just as I am sure that David
Pizer was expressing his own opinions, not writing on behalf of Alcor,
when he discussed the threat to patients posed by terrorism.

All of this should be quite obvious to anyone. Indeed, I think it is
obvious to Bob, although he prefers to muddy the waters by pretending
otherwise.

--

Re David Pascal's post, I have to say I remain convinced by the two people
who have communicated with me about Mr. Albin's past work for CI. I
believe the description of the conversation, in which Mr. Albin allegedly
mentioned perfusing with rose water and lanolin, was accurate. However, I
am also convinced that CI would not permit this to happen in any future
case.

I wrote:

"This procedure was followed, allegedly, more than a year ago."

David Pascal replied:

"The problem with this credible anonymous revelation is that there *was*
no suspension done by Mr. Albin a year ago, not two years ago, nor three."

But, I didn't say there was a case one year ago. I said it was MORE THAN
one year ago. This statement remains semantically correct.

I notice, incidentally, that Bob Ettinger has not denied that the
unorthodox perfusion took place; and that David Pascal was not active on
behalf of CI in those days, and thus had no personal experience of the
case, so far as I am aware.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17521