X-Message-Number: 17545
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:27:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: more Bob

Bob Ettinger wrote: "Yes, I denied it. I wrote that Albin's report was
unexceptionable."

This is not a denial. "Unexceptionable" means "Not open to objection,
criticism, or reproach." (Unabridged Merriam Webster.) So, Bob still feels
that Mr. Albin is a good guy who does good work. I would expect him to
feel this way and I'm sure that generally speaking, it is true. I still
believe however that Mr. Albin, who is a mortician, not a scientist, was
unaware of some do's and don't's in the past, and believed he was doing
the right thing with rosewater and lanolin. If Bob finds this
"unexceptionable," that's up to him. But it is not a denial.

Re Visser, Bob writes: "First, CI's decision to enter into a contract with
the Vissers was--at most--no more important than Alcor's." This is highly
misleading. As I understand it, the initial contact with Visser was via
Bob, he was the one who promoted her abilities, and convinced Alcor's
Steve Bridge to enter into an _exclusive_ agreement that would have
deprived other organizations of Visser's wonder drug. Bob then placed
multiple posts on CryoNet urging people to put money up for Visser's
"research" instead of contributing money to the Prometheus Project (as it
then was). Alcor did not participate in this grandstanding.

Bearing in mind the woman's total lack of credentials, implausible claims,
and use of a class of cryoprotectant that had been tried and discarded in
cryobiology, endorsing her work was a gross blunder. It cost Alcor $25,000
and CI $25,000 and caused significant embarrassment, first when the
procedure was shown not to work, and second when Visser tried to promote
the same cryoprotectant as a cure for AIDS--one of the most appallingly
irresponsible acts one can imagine. Talk about potential damage to
cryonics! Anything I may have said or done is trivial by comparison (and
in any case, my public statements have been aimed at reforming poor
procedures, not at misleading people into putting up money for frauds).

The fact that Bob now defends his involvement with Visser indicates a
credulity, and refusal to admit blame, which reinforces my belief about
probable procedures performed by Albin.

As for my supposed bias toward Alcor, I reported the Visser demo at Alcor
in relentless detail. If I had been biased, I would have omitted some of
this embarrassing detail. I have no "bias" toward any organization. I
simply write what I believe to be true; and at least 90 percent of the
time--probably more than 95 percent of the time--I have been correct.

The crucial fact is that courageous statements by Fred Chamberlain
confirmed the fraudulent nature of Visser's claims and ended the whole
sorry business. Alcor can take great credit for admitting that it made an
error instead of waffling and trying to cover it up. Mr. Ettinger,
meanwhile, could not bear to admit he had made a gross blunder, and
apparently still cannot bear to admit it. So, he continues to waffle and
try to cover it up--or at least, shift the blame. This is regrettable.

----

Re CryoCare, Bob writes: "The CryoCare fiasco cost Alcor and
cryonics much, much more than the Visser episode." This is absurd.
CryoCare functioned without scandals, internal bickering, failures to
perform, financial irregularities, or any of the other problems that have
plagued cryonics. We were always in compliance with our bylaws. CryoCare's
patients were properly funded and underwent procedures that were the best
available at that time. When we lost our service providers, we were honest
with our members at all times and did not attempt to make the situation
look better than it was. Ultimately our patients were safely relocated and
remain well funded at Alcor.

Bob writes, "CryoCare (although itself nonprofit) pulled a lot of people
out of Alcor." CryoCare was formed by people who had already decided to
leave Alcor, because they were discontent with the regime at that time.
CryoCare subsequently inherited some more Alcor members but at no time
sent mailings soliciting Alcor members. Ultimately CryoCare's membership
consisted of about 2/3 ex-Alcor and 1/3 new people who had been reluctant
to sign with any organization. They joined CryoCare because I believe, and
they believed, that we offered the best available service at that time.

Bob would do better to ask why so many Alcor members wanted to jump ship
and form CryoCare, 8 years ago--and why some of those people are now
rejoining Alcor (not CI). Since people such as Saul Kent and Steve Harris
MD are among the best informed activists in cryonics, maybe we should
consider that there must be a good reason for them to return to Alcor now.

Bob refers to "Mike Darwin's self-admitted health problems and lack of
reliable availability." When CryoCare was formed, Mike had no serious
self-admitted health problems (other than a broken foot, at one point) and
was 100 percent available. His response capability was unmatched anywhere,
and included a full standby kit, in military transport boxes, in the New
York area, as well as two ambulances on the west coast and a transport kit
that remains better equipped than any other I have ever seen in the entire
history of cryonics.

Bob continues in his rant: "Some of the CryoCare people have gone back to
Alcor, and a few have gone to CI, while others have just dropped out of
cryonics. Talk about self-inflicted wounds!"

This is knowingly inaccurate. Some CryoCare members did not switch to any
other organization because they didn't like the other organizations and
were still loyal to CryoCare. I still receive calls from some of them,
begging me to continue CryoCare in some form. This is the loyalty I
referred to earlier.

I myself didn't like the alternatives when CryoCare ceased offering
service; consequently, I didn't join any other organization. But I
certainly remained active in cryonics. I can think of 8 people, associated
directly or indirectly with 21CM or Critical Care Research, or family
members of these people, who also chose not to join any other
organization, initially at least--even though they were still dedicating
their lives to research of relevance to cryonics. Some of those people
still refuse to sign up elsewhere, even though they *want* cryonics
coverage. They don't like the available choices--including your
organization, Bob. Instead of blaming CryoCare for disillusioning people,
you might ask yourself why these people remain CryoCare members and eschew
the alternatives.

As for "a few have gone to CI," I think the number is no more than two,
one of whom joined CI because he believed he could persuade CI to upgrade
its procedures, and he felt this would be good for cryonics generally.
Correct me if I am wrong.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17545