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