X-Message-Number: 32469
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:47:09 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer]
References: <>

Here are my responses to my good friend David Pizer.
 >
DAVID PIZER: > The reason this debate is important is that it 
illustrates the downplaying of the disastrous public relations policy 
of cryonics companies in (as the public sees it) cutting off people's heads.
 >
 > My good friend Mike (Dr,) Perry has responded to my Cryonet post 
in another forum.  I am replying to him in that forum and on Cryonet 
where I originated the discussion.  Below are Mike's comments and my responses.
 >
 > UNKNOWN WROTE:   Please see the two messages that David Pizer 
wrote in the attached CryoNet digest. I think he has a good idea here 
regarding cryonics.  (ORIGINAL MESSAGES FROM PIZER DELETED)
MIKE PERRY: This was David Croft
 >
  MIKE PERRY: > With due respect for others' opinions I am opposed to 
eliminating the neuro option. I think that the long-term storage cost 
advantage of neuro over whole body is substantial (10 neuros will fit 
in the same size storage container as one whole body) and the 
negative publicity is overrated.
 >
 > PIZER'S RESPONSE:  Mike gives no actual figures of the difference 
in cost.  He just says 10 heads will fit in the same container as a 
whole body.  This is a way of misleading the reader into thinking 
that doing a "Neuro" suspension only costs 1/10 that of a whole 
body.  Nothing could be further than the truth.

MIKE PERRY: I don't actually say that, however, and immediately after 
this I do acknowledge that there are other costs to consider.  Alcor 
currently charges $80,000 for Neuro and $150,000 for whole body 
preservation (plus a surcharge for overseas cases). The $70,000 
difference between the two has to be considered significant. The 
disparity would be greater still if any of us who signed up for neuro 
years ago at lower rates were forced to switch to whole body. For 
instance I signed up for neuro in 1984 at the then-going rate of 
$35,000. I would have to come up with another $115,000 to convert to 
whole body at current rates. (As it happens, I have $85,000 
insurance, so I am overfunded for neuro, but not by much.)

DAVID PIZER: Most of the cost of doing a suspension (as I pointed out 
in my original posing and Mike conveniently overlooked) is in keeping 
the organization going to be there at suspension time, and in doing 
the standby and other costs.  The storage is not that big of the 
overall cost of either a Neuro or Whole Body suspension.

MIKE PERRY: Still though, there is a substantial difference in the 
cost of neuro versus whole body. Moreover, some of us even if we 
could afford whole body would prefer to put the funds into saving the 
most important part, the head, rather than distributing over a larger 
field. (That's the way I feel.)
 >
 >DAVID PIZER: AND, the attorney fees and roadblocks thrown up in 
Alcor's face, because the public detests Neuros, adds much more than 
the savings of a Neuro suspension to the over all costs of doing 
cryonics and Alcor staying in business  (just look at Alcor's annual 
costs of hiring consultants and attorneys, and other related expenses 
each year).

MIKE PERRY: As far as I can see, the attorney fees etc. are mainly 
concerned with other issues than the neuros Alcor does. Relatives 
claiming funds that were to be used for cryopreservation are one 
major case in point. Indirectly, undoubtedly there is some effect 
from neuros, e.g., litigation over certain claims made about Alcor's 
operations. That issue I think is pretty much one-of-a-kind, and will 
not persist longterm (see my comments below).
 >
 > DAVID PIZER: ALSO, doing Neuros causes the relatives of Alcor 
members to cause the members to cancel their membership.

MIKE PERRY: I don't see any figures on this. (And I didn't see any on 
the added cost of attorney's fees, etc. that is caused by the fact 
that Alcor does neuros.)

DAVID PIZER: This leads to lost patients - those members who quit us 
every year in droves would have become patients some day.  We lost 
and they lost - thanks to public perception of Neuro Option!

MIKE PERRY: I have yet to hear of anyone who dropped their membership 
in Alcor because Alcor does neuros. If they didn't want or select the 
neuro option themselves, it won't be applied against their will when 
they are cryopreserved. So why would someone drop their membership 
because others than themselves are being preserved by neuro?
 > DAVID PIZER:
 > 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!

MIKE PERRY: I don't think there is a substantial anti-neuro backlash 
and if there was I would have heard about it from our Membership 
Administrator. Why would someone "detest" neuros? It doesn't make 
much logical sense, since the brain is the important part to 
preserve, and we acknowledge that substantial repairs will be 
necessary so that that one part can function normally again. When 
people asked me about the missing body, I brought up Dolly the Sheep 
which was created from one cell (all organs etc.) and by appearances 
they accept the idea that recreating the body does not seem so farfetched.
 >
 > MIKE SAID:   (Storage costs are not the entire cost of long-term 
patient maintenance, but still quite a significant part.) TW strictly 
speaking was not a neuro. His whole body was preserved but in two 
parts. At the time of his cryopreservation Alcor had a vitrification 
protocol that required cephalic isolation (removing the head) to 
access the vasculature so the brain could be vitrified. It was either 
do that or accept a by-then substandard cryopreservation, the old 
kind with glycerol perfusion, not vitrification, if the whole body 
was perfused intact. Since this time Alcor has developed a protocol 
in which the whole body can be vitrified so that cephalic isolation 
is no longer required.
 >
 > PIZER:  Come on Mike!  EVERYONE Knew that TW's head was removed.
 >
 >  That is what turned most of the public against Alcor in this case 
- not the fact that we suspended him!
 >
MIKE: There were questions raised based on the decapitation. I get 
the impression they were well handled by Alcor and there has not been 
any strong backlash from the public at large. (Here I am refraining 
from comment about a certain matter relating to this because it is in 
litigation. But I don't think this one issue changes the conclusion. 
I think it is basically a one-time phenomenon that we are safely 
putting behind us.)

 > 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.

MIKE: Again, do you have actual figures? I don't know of a membership 
canceled because Alcor does neuros for those who choose this option.

PIZER: 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.)

MIKE: My feeling is that the latter far outnumber the former. If it 
were otherwise I would be hearing about it.
 >
 > MIKE:  The failure to consider the neuro option in the early days 
was, in my estimation, a major factor in the loss of patients that 
occurred. Time after time a whole body case would be abandoned rather 
than converted into lower-cost neuro. As for the negative publicity 
today, yes, neuro seems creepy to some people but can also make 
people think about what is really important about 
cryonics--preserving g the brain above all else. If we want to be 
rational we should allow this option. It can also be emphasized that 
nobody *requires* that someone sign up for neuro, you can go whole 
body if you choose (and can afford it).
 >
 > PIZER:  The "major" factor was the cryonics company in question 
ran out of money, good judgment and support from the relatives of the patients.

MIKE: If neuroconversion had been used a lot of these cases could 
have been saved, as a few actually were.
 >
 > Plus they were not set up like Alcor, They took suspensions on 
credit where Alcor solved that problem by requiring full payment up front.
 >
Yes, I agree.
Some final comments: I am in a position to hear of reasons why people 
either drop membership or won't sign up in the first place at Alcor. 
I have so far never heard "because you do neuros" as a reason given. 
I won't say it doesn't happen. But logically it seems reasonable that 
people who don't want neuro for themselves would be satisfied as long 
as *they* could sign up for whole body, whatever choice someone else 
might make. And I think *most people* feel that way.

Another point to make is that I think it is sad that the cost of 
cryonics is as high as it is, whatever the option chosen. Neuro *is* 
a lower-cost option than whole body, significantly so, when all 
factors are taken into account. It is probably not the lowest 
reasonable option, however, and I would like to see even lower-cost 
options offered. (Here I am not specifying the organization. Just 
somebody!) One possibility (suggested recently by Aschwin De Wolf) is 
to combine some form of rapid postmortem fixation with storage at 
-80C, about dry ice temperature. There are freezers that could 
accomplish this. If the patient ever warmed up to room temperature, 
it would not be the end of the world, in view of the fixation, though 
reestablishing the low temperature would be an urgent priority. A 
neuro done this way might be cheaper than storage in LN2, with more 
protection against the effects of warming. At least this idea should 
be researched.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32469