X-Message-Number: 21980 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:20:41 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: CryoNet #21963 - #21972 From: "Charles Platt" <> References: <> Most of David Pascal's recent message complains that Alcor's open description of recent cases isn't open enough. This is an impossible argument to counter, because no matter what I write, David can always say that it isn't open enough. Also the argument is a distraction from my very simple point. CI publishes virtually no information about cases at all. > No one notified Charles about the CI case in LA, because there *was* no CI > case in LA. Okay. Since CI had withheld the information about where its most recent case originated, I was forced to guess, and guessed that a last-minute case which Alcor didn't take (and which we referred to CI) had been taken by CI. If there was more openness, I wouldn't have been forced to guess. > (In passing -- do I take it, from the above statement, that Alcor's COO is > publicly stating that Alcor volunteer standby teams are ready and willing to > assist us without charge and without any contract or > paperwork? Cool!) I believe at least one Alcor member participated in the case in Canada reported by Ben Best. There is a long history of people pitching in, in cryonics, when there is an emergency. Of course, someone has to tell them that a case is happening, otherwise they can't pitch in. > Charles also mentions Tim Freeman yet again, which sort of puzzles me. I > don't necessarily mean to push Tim Freeman into stating his > organizational affiliations if he doesn't feel like it, but as far as I > know, he's not a member of CI at all. You'd better check with Tim on this, David. He was a governor or director of ACS (he is unsure of the title, in retrospect) and when CI absorbed ACS, you inherited Tim Freeman. At least, this is Tim's understanding. > Not to be put off, though, I took myself to Charles' recent (and > excellent) article in the latest issue of Cryonics, to see if I could find > more extensive examples of openness and information-sharing. I noted that > he wrote: "The vitrification solution that Alcor uses > successfully on neuropatients has been tested only once on a whole body -- > that of a small dog. During the perfusion, undesirable side effects were > observed." > > Now that was interesting. What side effects were these? Quivering nose > hairs? Exploding lungs? Sadly the reader is not told. As Charles says of > CI, "Is this opaque or what?" I didn't provide the full details because I don't have them. I try not to report hearsay. I am told that there was pulmonary edema. I have not verified this. It predated my work at Alcor. > an April 2002 Advisory Committee report > written by Charles Platt and others assessing Alcor's technical services. I > would venture to guess that such a report would be interesting reading. It was, at the time. It is now out of date. > The bottom line is this: CI has invited Alcor to send observers on those > occasions when we have suspensions. If Alcor can't line any up, that's too > bad, How can we send observers, when the first we learn of a case is when Bob writes a couple of lines about it on CryoNet?! If you give me 6 hours notice, I'll attend any case in the nation. And will help as well as observe. However, since I was told not attend the "cryosummit," probably I would be equally unwelcome at a CI case. In which case, who *would* be welcome? There's no point in claiming that observers can attend if you don't notify any potential observers. --C Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21980