X-Message-Number: 32462
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:29:33 +0100
References: <>

On 8 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Mike says: "... the negative publicity is overrated."
>
> Pizer: I have talked to thousands of individuals and groups on  
> cryonics over the years and Mike is just plain *DEAD* wrong.    
> People won't always tell a cryonicists, to his face, that they  
> detest Neuros, so a while ago when we were speaking to groups we let  
> the audience fill out cards after the talk (without revealing their  
> identity) about what they thought of our talk and cryonics in  
> general and they detest Neuros.  It is the single one thing that  
> turns them against cryonics and against Alcor!

It is difficult to draw any conclusion without controlling for the  
relationship between approval of cryonics and approval of neuro. For  
example, it could be that people have an overwhelmingly negative  
reaction to neuro, but those who approve of cryonics don't. Therefore,  
it could be that the people who would consider signing up are not  
negative to neuro.

If anyone is going to be collecting data like this, they can send me  
the forms in advanced. This will allow us to draw some conclusions  
about these issues.

Since ALCOR and CI differ in offering neuro, a comparison of data from  
them might also throw some light on this question. Unfortunately, at  
the moment I am not seeing even the most basic data that could be  
useful.

If public opinion was being sampled on a routine basis, we could  
probably say something about attitudes related to neuro.


> MIKE: the negative publicity is overrated., no neuropreservation has  
> ever terminated. No lawsuit has ever been instigated *because*  
> someone was preserved as a neuro rather than whole body.
>
> PIZER:  Hundred of Alcor memberships have been canceled over the  
> years.  I believe it is because (in some/many cases) the relatives  
> of the member hate Alcor so much - mainly because the are sicken by  
> the Neuro option that we offer.  (In other cases, I believe, it is  
> because the relatives know if the member cancels "they" can get the  
> proceeds of the funding vehicle.)

This could be investigated with data on cancellations of neuro vs.  
whole body contracts, by including info on the funding method.


> And the consequence of forcing members to take out a larger life  
> insurance
> policy would only serve to increase the bounty on the heads of  
> members (no
> pun intended) for family members who would be tempted to cash in by
> interfering.

This hypothesis could be tested with data on cancellations vs. funding  
method.


> I've talked to many people over the years and it isn't neuro
> preservation that is the key issue here, but our inability to bring  
> back a
> whole organism such as a monkey or dog, etc.

A widely held belief that is not supported by the data we currently  
have and which is not true for about a third of the US population.


We are talking about multi-million dollar decisions here and there has  
yet to be a single dollar invested in getting answers that are more  
than guess work. A lot of the data needed is already being collected,  
but not being used. Does anyone have an idea of how we can get due  
diligence in these life and death decisions?


dss

David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32462