X-Message-Number: 24681
From: 
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:39:05 EDT
Subject: Comparisons continued

Unfortunately, Mr. Waynick continues to obfuscate. 
 
First, however, he says the Alcor site now has a link to CI. I was just now  
unable to reach the Alcor site to check, but it's certainly possible that the  
site has changed since I last looked. I don't look at it often. If they now 
link  to CI, fine--one less problem. However, he says "In fact, Alcor has 

[l]inked to  every other cryonics organization for years." This I don't believe,
although I  am not immune to error. If I'm wrong, I apologize on this point.
 
For the rest, however, his last post continues the pattern of changing the  
subject and using non-sequiturs. 
 
1. He says that refraining from comparisons must be two-way, and we should  
start by removing mention of Alcor from the CI site. No--we can start and 

finish  in one stroke, simply by both agreeing to eliminate all direct or 
indirect  
comparisons. 
 
2. Unfortunately, he also implies there will be no such agreement, since "I  
do believe that the public should be properly informed of the technological  
advantages of Alcors  protocols to counteract the berating Alcor receives  on 
the CI  comparisons  page."

The implication here is that  Alcor's comparisons were merely a response to 
statements on the CI web site. The  reverse is true. Alcor's comparisons long 
preceded the existence of the CI web  site. Our explanations were a necessary 
response to Alcor's claims.
 
And "berating" is a ridiculous word to use in this context. Nothing on our  
web site is disrespectful or derogatory to Alcor. We merely point out  

differences and our reasons for our choices. We acknowledge that Alcor has good
people and good intentions, and no one has a monopoly on merit.
 
3. Since Mr. Waynick has not only refused to consider deleting comparisons  

but has continued and expanded them, I'll take a moment here to review a few of
 the instances and indications of CI leadership.
 
a) We have the only research program led by a professional  cryobiologist.
 
b) Our cryostats are better. Their efficiency is at least as good as those  
of Alcor (our latest ones use less than $100 per year per patient for liquid  
nitrogen), and they are much more rugged, much less vulnerable to damage, and 
if  they ever need repair (none ever has) it can be done on the spot in-house  
without disturbing patients.
 
c) At the moment we have a slight lead in number of patients.
 
d) We own our property free and clear, and have never had  any debt.
 
e) We have been growing faster than Alcor.
 
f) When members switch, it is almost always from Alcor to CI--which  seems to 
mean that even those who can afford Alcor finally decided CI is  better.
 
g) A little more food for thought is that our president, Ben Best, was once  
an Alcor member, and at one time president of CryoCare. He knows as much  
about cryonics, including the technical side and the history, as just about  

anybody, and wants the best for himself and others. As for myself, I am the  
senior 
cryonicist of all, and my personal survival is not a minor matter  for me, 
and I could afford Alcor, but I believe CI is a better bet.
 
h) Mr. Waynick chooses the low road to deride CI as a "cemetery" and the  use 
of mortuary premises for our perfusions. This cheap shot completely ignores  
the essentials. Our agreement with the state, licensing CI as a  cemetery, 

changes nothing in our procedures--we use the same people, the  same equipment,
and the same procedures as before, and will modify these as our  research 
dictates, exactly as we would have done before the agreement. The  licensing 

changed only a trivial formality or two, such as the formal  segregation of some
funds for maintenance--nothing essential. In fact, the net  result of the 
licensing is simply to clear away any lingering legal limbo. Alcor  is not yet 

entirely in the clear on that score, although I hope and expect that  things 
will 
work out all right for them.
 
i) In many cases CI can get help to patients, and has done so, faster than  
Alcor could and faster than Alcor in many cases has, through our local  
cooperating funeral directors or local volunteers. We don't claim uniform  

superiority here, but Mr. Waynick's claim that Alcor is generally faster is  
simply not 
true. Ordinary common sense will reveal to anyone not comatose that a  trained 
funeral director two minutes away--for example, when my wife Mae  died--is 
going to respond, on average, much more quickly than a distant remote  standby 
team. In fact, Mae died when we were living in Scottsdale AZ, where  Alcor is 
located, and even there Alcor could not have responded as quickly. In  some 
cases, according to my information, it has taken Alcor people as much  as 30 
hours to reach the patient.
 
j)........I think I'll stop here. There is much more on our web site.  Again, 
only a few criteria show clear-cut superiority of one or the other; most  

questions are complex and two-sided, and people equally intelligent and honest
can differ. But Mr. Waynick's intemperate claims and accusations don't help  
anyone.
 
Again, my very simple suggestion. Let CI and Alcor agree to discontinue all  
direct or indirect comparisons in all dealings with the public, press, and  
prospective members. When asked for comparisons, just refer the questioner to  
the respective web sites and publications, and say that inquirers must draw  
their own conclusions.
 
Eventually, cryonics may come to be dominated by huge for-profit  companies, 
maybe a subsidiary of General Electric. But the near and intermediate  term 
can be important for some of us. If this little contention could be  removed, 

the credibility of cryonics generally would gain and some lives  might be saved.
 
 Robert Ettinger
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24681