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

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.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21980