X-Message-Number: 24338
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:31:58 +0200
Subject: Re: watching quackwatch
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Sunday, July 4, 2004, at 08:40  PM, Dan Hitt wrote:

> I would caution that Stephen B also considers cryonics to be quackery
> (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/cryonics.html),

My letter to quackwatch:



I often refer people to your site, but the following page is faulty.


http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/cryonics.html


This info is not correct:

> The current cost ranges from about $28,000 for preservation of just 
> the brain within the head to more than $120,000 for whole-body 
> freezing and perpetual maintenance in liquid nitrogen.



This first sentence is false, because water tends to leave the cell 
during freezing (previous statement also problematic in this regard):

> Brain cells deteriorate   within minutes after death, and any still 
> viable when the body   is frozen would be burst by the freezing 
> process. Cryonics might   be a suitable subject for scientific 
> research, but marketing   an unproven method to the public is quackery 
> [3].

The cryonics providers clearly state they are doing research that will 
require future technology for its completion. Thus, by definition it is 
unproven and that is acknowledged.


Your definition:

> quackery could be broadly defined as "anything involving overpromotion 
> in the field of health."

Unless, you predefine cryonics as unworkable then it is not being 
overpromoted. That is, unless you claim it should not be promoted at 
all, the current promotion is reasonable. Claiming it should not be 
promoted at all, however, prejudges the outcome of the cryonics 
experiment, that people may choose to participate in.

Since the providers are non-profit and there is no misrepresentation to 
the public, I don't see how they can be denoted as acting 
inappropriately. They operate with the concept of 'information death', 
which is currently not accepted. However, as seen over the last hundred 
years, changes in technology can change definitions. I refer here to 
the change from bodily death (e.g., heart fibrillation) to cellular 
death being regarded as irreversible.

The people you cite are clearly ignorant about the subject. Including 
faulty statements on your pages without comment doesn't maintain site 
credibility. In fact, it could be said that you and these people are 
overpromoting in the field of health.

Please delete this page or update it in some way. As it stands now, you 
seem to be saying that novelty itself is suspect.


dss

David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24338