X-Message-Number: 29183 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:17:30 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: CI formula References: <> Ben Best's announcement (quoted below) is of greater significance than its brevity suggests. So long as CI would not reveal the composition of its vitrification solution, AND could not publish the kind of results from animal studies that had come through 21st, it was very hard to know whether the results of using Yuri Pichugin's formulation at CI would be comparable to the results achieved at Alcor with M22. If the CI vitrification solution can produce comparable results, and if other factors are equal (including standby and transport service, perfusion control systems, and rapid cooling capability), then a CI member can save $55,000 compared with a comparable wholebody member at Alcor (the Alcor minimum is $150,000, while the CI package works out around $95,000 depending how you mix-and-match various standby and other options). If you decide that you don't need a standby, of course the CI package becomes even cheaper; but since $100,000 is a typical minimum life insurance face value these days, the majority of new CI signups seem to be opting to receive standby coverage through Suspended Animation. The "ifs" in the above paragraph are not at all trivial, and remain open to debate. Also, if you actually prefer the option of neuropreservation (as I do), CI's lower wholebody cost may be of relatively little importance. Still, the fact that a comparison is possible represents a major change from two years ago, when CI did not even have standby capability. For younger people who expect to live many more years before needing assistance, recurring fees are an important consideration. CI membership is $120 per year while Alcor charges $518 for full membership including Comprehensive Member Standby Plan. (There are other ways to make Alcor payments, and CI also has various options, but I believe these are the basic numbers.) Quality of care is not the only issue. Alcor has a larger membership base (which may be an index of longterm stability) and its patients are better funded (which is of relevance to everyone, since patient funds are shared). Alcor functions without regulatory oversight, while CI is regulated as a cemetery, prohibiting it from performing procedures on-site. Probably there are other factors which I have forgotten to include. Still, I believe that CI's competitive position has improved significantly. Personally I am very pleased by the policy of openness that has gradually displaced the old habits of secrecy that used to apply to almost all topics, ranging from membership numbers to washout and cooldown procedures. --Charles Platt (Speaking ONLY for myself, not for any organization) > Message #29181 > Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:05:18 -0500 > From: > Subject: Cryonics Institute Vitrification Formula Disclosure > > On the basis of legal counsel the Cryonics Institute (CI) > has decided to abandon efforts to obtain a patent for the > vitrification mixture being used by CI to cryopreserve > patients and pets. The formula is being disclosed to > preclude others from preventing CI from using it. Full > disclosure can now be found on the following page of > the CI website: > > http://www.cryonics.org/research/CI-VM-1.html > > -- Ben Best, President, Cryonics Institute > > Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29181 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > End of CryoNet Digest > ********************* > > Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29183