X-Message-Number: 17582
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Reply to Ettinger

Bob wrote:

"My contention was not that CryoCare had no virtues, but that it had
obvious defects, and that it caused more losses to Alcor and to Cryonics
than did the Visser affair. Alcor lost members when CryoCare was formed,
and never got them all back. Some people dropped out of cryonics
altogether when CryoCare folded."

Look, I already answered these points, all of which are misleading or
false.

First you do not state what the "obvious defects" of CryoCare were. I
already listed its positive features, which were unmatched by any other
cryonics organization.

Second, I already pointed out that CryoCare did not "cause more losses to
Alcor." The founding members of Alcor were already disillusioned and
disenchanted; that's why they formed CryoCare. The Alcor regime in those
days was remarkably unresponsive, which led to significant discontent. If
Alcor had followed a different policy, CryoCare would have had no reason
to exist. I would have been delighted; the last thing I wanted was the
huge challenge and time-consuming effort of starting a new organization.

Third, I already pointed out that many CryoCare members had never been
part of any organization. These people were a *net addition* to cryonics.
Is this concept too subtle for you, Bob?

Fourth, I already stated that when CryoCare ceased offering services, the
people who failed to rejoin other organizations were some of the most
active people in cryonics and in research, *and still are.* They did not
"drop out of cryonics." They were waiting (some are still waiting) for an
organization that would satisfy their standards. I realize this is hard
for you to comprehend, because you believe that CI has impeccable
standards. But not everyone agrees with you about this, Bob.

You continue:

"The damage done to cryonics by the Visser affair, as far as I know, is
completely undocumented"

Well, no one has done a survey asking people if they are concerned that CI
and Alcor spent $25,000 each on a woman who falsely claimed to resuscitate
rat hearts and later used the same chemical as a bogus cure for AIDS.
(What do you think the results would be, Bob?) Actually I think you are
correct that cryonics survived relatively unscathed from the Visser
affair, because it was relatively undocumented. I was the only person who
wrote a detailed report, for a small-circulation magazine, and I am sure
you didn't circulate a copy of this report among your members. But the
potential for damage was clearly quite large, if a journalist had felt
like writing about it for the national press.

In any case my original point was that the incident showed an amazing
misjudgment and created a great deal of embarrassment. I did not try to
quantify damage. That was your red herring.

Finally:

"The key fact in the Visser rat heart case was that the Alcor apparatus,
as I recall, showed a temperature near that of liquid nitrogen, and after
rewarming the heart resumed beating. There was clapping and cheering
around the room. (Not by me--I'm not that demonstrative.)"

How about some journalistic fundamental details, Bob? Like, WHEN? My
detailed report, *and* Fred Chamberlain's report, both showed that no
beating was observed during the public demonstration, which was repeated
on four rat hearts. Fred wrote his conclusions after very carefully
inspecting the video tape that was made. The experiment was a total
failure. Your pet pseudoscientist took your money and ran back to South
Africa (to poison AIDS patients with a fake cure) without achieving
anything. Your statement is a complete denial of reality.

"There is a partial analogy with Alcor's decision to apply its
"vitrification" procedure to human patients, even though that procedure,
to my knowledge, has never been tested and evaluated with experimental
animals."

This is an appalling comparison that insults the integrity, life work, and
credentials of dedicated scientists. If you would simply bother to *pick
up the phone*, you would find that you are totally wrong. Animal testing
has been an integral part of the 21CM development of vitrification
solutions for many years. A rabbit kidney was the first organ to be
vitrified, when the originator of the concept was still working at the Red
Cross, many years ago.

I can't believe that you are unaware of this. Also, I suspect that if CI
were able to license vitrification technology, your entire posture on this
topic would reverse itself.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17582