X-Message-Number: 17591
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:13:34 -0400
Subject: Roses, Arabs, Etcetera
From: 

Sometimes I have an itch to write the webmaster of the CI web site and
ask her to remove the Cryonet listing from the information links page. 
Why?  Because I don't think there is a greater source of misinformation
about cryonics in existence.  What keeps me from doing so is the
knowledge that at moments of tragedy like the current one, Cryonet is
always there to provide something comic.  The off-topic discourse, the
personal rancor and innuendo, the never-ending arguments about incidents
gone but (alas) not forgotten, the obsession with trivia -- who is so
deadpan as not to smile?  The most recent spasms of verbiage about rose
water, tactical nukes, Arab terrorist attacks on dewars, etcetera, have
set a new level even by normal Cryonet standards, however.  If I might
add some comments of my own: 

1.  In Message #17521, Mr. Charles Platt wrote:

>> 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.
<<

Faith is a beautiful thing; but I think Charles should restrict his
experiences in this regard to Our Blessed Lord.  Anonymous posts are not
credible; anonymous posts with no proof, no exact details, no factual
back-up, are even less credible.  Nobody in the world is going to go to
the extra time, trouble, expense, and outright legal danger of perfusing
someone with 'lanolin and rosewater', plus falsify paperwork, plus cross
their fingers hoping that the cryonics provider receiving the said
patient will be just plain too blind to notice, and then whisper the dark
enterprise into the ears of not one but two of Charles' anonymous
correspondents.  Such actions would not just be professional suicide;
they would be mad.  There's no reason or evidence to indicate that
anything like this happened, and ample reason and evidence to believe it
did not.  Charles can believe what he likes, of course.  But really I
wish he'd stick to Santa Claus.  At least we know who Santa is.

>> However, I am also convinced that CI would not permit this to happen
in any future case. <<

Thank you.  I myself am convinced that CI would not permit it to happen
in any case, but all votes of confidence are appreciated.

Also, regarding the point I made that, "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," Charles replied:

>> 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. <<

If a eighty-year-old woman states in a personal ad that she is 'MORE
THAN' twenty, that statement remains semantically correct.  But I think
her date will perhaps not be as impressed by her... um, syntax, as
Charles. 

>>  I notice, incidentally, that Bob Ettinger has not denied that the
unorthodox perfusion took place; <<

Apparently Charles did not notice, for Bob Ettinger has already mentioned
that Albin's report accompanied the one patient that he prepared for us,
and that it contained nothing out of the ordinary.  No spontaneous
lanolin weirdness.  Sorry.

>> 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.<<

So?  I am not aware that Charles Platt was on the spot in every last
Alcor and CryoCare suspension, but need we assume from that that Alcor
teams and BioPreservation were pumping in lanolin by the gallon every
time his back was turned?  Of course not. 

Now Charles Platt, as we all know, has a good mind, and I like to think
his heart too is in the right place.  But, in the feverish heat of
dumping on Robert Ettinger and CI, he tends to give the benefit of the
doubt to any charge, however weak.  This one's not just weak:  it
crumbles to dust at the least touch.  One would imagine Charles would
chalk this particular non-controversy up to experience, and find another
use for his considerable skills, particularly since there are better
windmills out there for a fellow of his ability to tilt his lance at.  I
hope he finds a few.  I really can't leave him without touching on two
further boners, however.  Charles wrote:

>> 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."

I expect 'Bob' was too busy ducking rocks from various quarters to
consult the Unabridged Merriam Webster.  Or maybe he just thought that it
was pointless to repeat that Albin, having been instructed by letter, by
email, by phone, and in person, could probably tell the difference
between perfusing with the solutions CI sent him and perfusing with
perfume.  A 'scientist' might not tell the difference; nanoelectronics
isn't perfusion; but a mortician in an organization like Albin's, that's
been in business 217 years?  I kinda think such a mortician would.

Er... And just for the record:  'I deny it'.  OK?

Charles also said, somewhere or other:

>> Indeed, I wonder about the pathology of people generally who believe
you can defy death with a shot of heparin and a few liters of glycerol,
even when the patient has been sitting in a room-temperature environment
for hours, without pulse or respiration. <<

Hm, Charles must be speaking of those Alcor officials who are still using
heparin and glycerol on whole-body patients, I believe.  They seem sane
to me.  Blindingly so, by Cryonet standards.  I believe that Charles is
here trying to say that anyone who dies and remains at room-temperature
for 'hours'  (2?  17?  13,019?) is gone for good.  A marvelous argument
for the CI system of rapid funeral director care!  The only problem is
that it assumes (a) that we know the exact neurophysiological bases of
memory and personality in the brain, (b) that we have absolutely certain
scientific evidence that two hours or more of warm ischemia destroys all
trace of such, and (c) that nothing science in the near or far future
will ever be able to restore it.  None of these assumptions are proven,
one or perhaps two may not even be provable or disprovable, the
unfortunate fact is that that 'scientists' (not -- *shudder* --
'morticians') whom Charles generically lauds, such as Ralph Merkle, have
made rather a thorough case (http://www.merkle.com) of suggesting the
exact opposite, namely, that patients may have a very good chance indeed
of revival after even poorer suspension conditions.  So I myself would
suggest that we give Alcor whole-body patients enduring such lamentable
preparations the benefit of the doubt.

2.  In Message #17569, Ms. Clarissa Wells, touching on much the same
topic, wrote: 

>> It is clear that Mr Albin uses the term rosewater to mean something
different from rosewater per se and hence simply asking him what he used
might lead to a confusing answer.  The route to an answer is simple.
Let's look at some real evidence and stop arguing like children. A
British embalming authority is said to have denied that rose-water and
distilled water are the same. Does any one have any counter evidence. A
pack of English rosewater might tell us on the label. Who volunteers to
buy one? <<

To save any potential purchasers of rosewater a few pennies, I ought to
point out that my dictionary (Webster's) gives two definitions of rose
water, one of which defines rose water as water with 'oil of roses'
added, to serve as a perfume.  Since there are no exact proportions
prescribed, there are potentially hundreds of conceivable formulae out
there, and purchasing one will not tell you anything about the
composition of any other, nor about 'rose water' per se.  All we can say
for sure is that (a) perfume is totally useless as an cryopreservative
solution, which is why (b) CI does not use it in its solutions, and why
(c) Mr. Albin, who has been instructed to use those solutions
exclusively, does not use it either.  As he has said. 

>> Most importantly, whatever any one says about rosewater and lanolin,
CI's contemporaneous records and blood, or here perfusate, samples will
demonstrate if if rosewater or lanolin was used.<<

Quite right.  CI's records state that Mr. Albin followed CI procedures
without deviating from them, and CI personnel, receiving the patient, did
not see any indication whatever that the patient in question was perfused
with 'rosewater and lanolin'.  And, not to belabor this point, but if you
perfuse someone with the equivalent of Chanel No. 5 and Noxzema, it will
be pretty obvious that something is wrong.  Nothing was.  Examining the
patient's blood in order to determine the amount of rose water in it
would be kind of silly, since the whole point of perfusion is to replace
the patient's blood.   Will CI thaw its patient out, *double*-check, and
then re-freeze?  Will it do so again if an anonymous emailer suggests Mr.
Albin, who now is said to have used 'lanolin' too, is next accused of
using champagne, motor oil, Brut?  Will Alcor thaw all its vitro patients
if an anonymous email claims the secret mystery formula Alcor now uses is
Pepsi?  Only if all existing cryonics organizations want to ravage their
patients' neuroanatomy beyond belief, and commit collective suicide.  I
do not think this will happen.

Let us all acknowledge four simple things, shall we?  1.  There is no
reason whatsoever for anyone to use rose water in a suspension.  2. 
There is every reason -- legal, professional, instructional, financial --
for Mr. Albin particularly not to have done so.  3.  His report contained
no evidence that he deviated from instructions.  4.  CI's examination of
the patient upon arrival indicated no evidence of any such deviation.  

On which note, let us mercifully allow these particular roses to fade,
eh?

3.  To Mr. Robert Ettinger's statement that CI, which is outside the
Detroit area, was not likely to be struck be Arab terrorists (since the
Detroit area has a large number of Arab and Moslem residents), Mr. Mike
Darwin wrote:

>> This has to be one of the most grotesquely shortsighted, insensitive,
and inappropriate statements ever made on Cryonet. <<

A far-sighted, sensitive, and appropriate statement.  Though why it is
insensitive to suggest that Arabs and Moslems might hesitate to kill
other Arabs and Moslems kind of escapes me.  The subsequent tete-a-tete
between Mr. Ettinger and Mr. Darwin revealed that both support Israel. 
Ariel Sharon is doubtless heartened.

4.  Regarding the great Cryonet debate about Arabs and Moslems that is
rapidly moving all our research efforts, I would like to stray off-topic
a bit and make a few points myself.

Some facts:  first, there are roughly a billion Moslems in the world. 
There are only one hundred million Arabs.  Which means?  That nine out of
ten Moslems are not Arabs.  Moslems are Yugoslavs, Indians, Russians, and
so on.  Moslems -- like people of Arab ancestry -- are also Americans. 
There are, I believe, three million Arab-Americans, and seven million
Muslim Americans in the US.  Lately we have all been force-fed staring
maniacal faces leering from burnooses by the media, and are encouraged to
associate them with the word 'Arab'.  What do the real faces of Arab and
Muslim Americans look like?    Like Danny and Marlo Thomas; like Paula
Abdul; like Muhammed Ali; like Paul Anka; like Ralph Nader; like Doug
Flutie!  Not gibbering lunatics or evil incarnate:  people like you and
me.  And even if they were *not* like you and me, they would not deserve
harassment or persecution.  

As far as the World Trade Center bombing goes, we all ought to remember
two things.  The World Trade Center was an international financial
institution.  Americans died there, yes, but so did people from every
major nation on earth.  Arab nationals died there, and Arab-Americans
died there too.  Moslems died there, certainly in the hundreds, possibly
in the thousands.  That crime was a crime against humanity, not just
against any particular branch of it.  The terrorists killed Arabs and
Moslems as readily as they did everyone else; and they have been
appropriately condemned for it by Arabs and Moslems.

We also ought to remember also that that we do not yet know who
perpetrated it.  After the Oklahoma City bombing, the press was as awash
with photos and suspicions of Moslem fanatics as it is now.  And the
ultimate perpetrator?  All-American boy Timothy McVeigh.  We ought not to
leap to tar any particular group of people with the especially foul brush
of terrorist sympathies.  Cruelty and brutality are not restricted to any
race or religion, and in fighting brutality one all too easily slips into
the role of brute oneself.  It is something we should all take care to
avoid.  Perhaps we could get some practice by experimenting with courtesy
here on Cryonet.  It would be a refreshing change of pace.

4.  Regarding Arabs and CI specifically:  everyone is entitled to their
own opinion, and CI restricts no member from expressing his or hers.  But
policy is another matter, and CI policy is clear:  we don't ask about
people's ethnic or religious backgrounds, or care.  We invite and welcome
everyone.  I don't know whether CI has any Arab or Moslem members or
patients, since we don't ask members about their religion or race.  I do
know that we have people of several religions and races, and that we have
at least received inquiries from Moslem families.  Those inquiries were
welcome, and those families, and any other families, are also welcome.

I think we would all do very well to remember Mr. F.M. Esfandiary --
'FM-2030'.  He seems to have been universally respected here as an
author, scholar, teacher, lecturer, novelist, and most of all as a
tireless supporter and advocate of cryonics.  That he was.  He was also
an Arab, born in Iran, educated in Arab schools, representing Iran in the
Olympics, and serving on the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine. 
It seems to me that cryonics could use a million 'Arabs' like that.  And
that we gain absolutely nothing by giving into the racism and chauvinism
that made the preceeding centuries hell on earth for much of mankind.  We
are supposed to be futurists:  let's live that futurism right now, by
leaving ethnic aversions behind us, back in the dark ages where it
belongs.

5.  One last word.  I like to think of myself as a practical man, and
when something bad happens, I try to ask myself:  what can I do, not just
say, that will actually make a difference?  In the case of these recent
bombings, there is not much.  One can donate blood, one can write one's
Congressman, but the fact remains that the people who died in New York
and Virginia are gone, and we cannot bring them back or save their lives.

But we *can* save other lives.  As great as the loss of life in New York
was, let us remember that what we are trying to achieve in the cryonics
movement promises to save not just *as* many lives as were lost this
week, but thousands of lives -- millions of lives -- more.  We can't save
the victims of those bombings, but there are people right here right now
that we can save -- ourselves, for one, if we've signed with a cryonics
organization; people like James Swayze, for another;  perhaps our parents
or our children or our spouses or our friends, if we take the simple
action of telling people about our beliefs and our efforts.  We can set
an example of commitment, we can support and advance research, we can get
involved, we can make donations that can result in breakthroughs.  We
can't make a difference to the people who died in New York and Virginia,
but we *can* make a difference to others, to the future.  And it is
better to do that and save even one person than to mourn for thousands. 
We have the ability to make a manifest difference in accelerating perhaps
the most life-saving medical technique ever conceived.  It's here, with
cryonics, that the future is being built, that human mortality, that
thief of life, is finally being pushed back, finally being *effectively*
fought.  It's here where our actions count, and take on a significance
that could have infinite repercussions.

I see people arguing about Arabs, Israel, Noah's Ark, Olga Visser, rose
water -- it's absurd.  If we care about human lives, if we want to save
human lives, our own and others, we should all cool off and ask
ourselves:  what can I do that will help accomplish that?   I'll tell
you.  Join a cryonics organization.  CI, Alcor, ACS, whatever.  Support
research.  Donate.  Contribute.  Tell others, stand up publicly for what
we believe in and what we're fighting for.  And -- not least -- try
treating others around here with courtesy.  Cryonics will go much further
much faster if we cooperate than if we're forever arguing about bygone
trivia or about things we cannot effect.  Rather than berating Arabs and
Moslems and most of all one another, let's simply try to move cryonics
forward just a little further.  Because each small advance takes us
closer to the point when what we are doing will transform everything. 
Let's commit ourselves to that, and not to enmity.
  
David Pascal
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17591