X-Message-Number: 3255
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 15:19:42
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Charles Platt
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
October 11, 1994
In reply to: Message: #3236 - Funding for Patients
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 02:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
No matter how things change, the arguments on cryonics history and on
the rivalry between cryonics organizations always seem to overwhelm our
better natures. I hate jumping in between two friends of mine who are
growling at each other, since I might get bitten myself, but it seems
necessary here. I disagree with much of Dave Pizer's approach in his
previous letter; but I'm afraid Charles has added his own errors to the
fire in his reply.
Due to some misunderstanding and misremembering, I'm sure, Charles
makes some inaccurate statements about the funding of Alcor patients in
his posting. As Alcor's President, I would like to correct them.
>You seem to forget, Dave, that Alcor HAS made exceptions to this rule.
>James Bedford is stored by Alcor as a charity case who is paid for out of
>other patients' funds.
Actually, Dr. Bedford is not a charity case. Jerry Leaf and others
covered Bedford's nitrogen bills for several years after Alcor assumed
responsibility for Dr. Bedford in 1982. Jerry also added extra funding to
his own life insurance so that Dr. Bedford would be covered in the future.
Sometime after Richard Jones went into suspension in 1988, a large extra
amount of funding from the Jones estate ($200,000, I believe) was added to
the Patient Care Fund by Alcor's Board of Directors to cover past
underfunding and to provide future security. And when Jerry Leaf himself
went into suspension in 1991, his extra funding was added to the Patient
Care Fund to protect all the patients, including Dr. Bedford.
>Also, I believe there have been two other cases in
>the past two years where Alcor received no payment for members who died,
>but the patients are in storage anyway.
This is not exactly true. The first case Charles is probably
thinking of was that of the member from Texas who committed suicide in
early 1993. It is true that in doing so, the man invalidated his
insurance funding. However, he also had a $10,100 bank account in trust
for Alcor. And we received about $1,100 in returned insurance premiums.
This allowed us to place $7,500 (the assumed neuropatient cost at that
time, without the "doubling safety factor") into the Patient Care Fund to
care for the patient, and still cover our costs of retrieval of the
patient's brain and the cremation of the rest of body.
It is true that our next patient in April, 1993 turned out not to
have informed his insurance company about his terminal condition when he
applied for his policy, and the insurer refused to pay. After a number of
appeals to the insurer and to the member's estate, we ran out of options.
Fortunately, he was a neuropatient, and -- since the upfront costs had
already been incurred long before we found out we had a problem -- the
best decision seemed to be to keep the patient in suspension.
Also, I want to reply to Charles's later addendum on this subject.
Message: #3240 - Addendum re Dave Pizer
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 14:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
>I now gather, from various sources, that when Dave Pizer accused CryoCare
>of accepting patients who are paid for on an installment plan, what he
>really meant was to accuse CryoSPAN of this.
>The last time Dave rushed his opinions onto the net (as usual, without
>bothering to call anyone to check the details), I explained yet again
>that CryoCare employs independent providers for stabilizing/perfusing
>patients and for storing patients. This has been mentioned here so
>often, I should imagine everyone is sick of reading about it. But it
>obviously needs to be mentioned again--for Dave at any rate.
>...
[much cut, with some scattered sentences included for effect]
>The CEO of CryoSPAN is Paul Wakfer. It is his company. Those of us who
>work for CryoCARE are in no way affiliated with CryoSPAN.
>...
>I realize that some people at Alcor persist in believing that the legal
>separation between CryoCare and CryoSpan is a fiction. I hope they will
>reach a new level of enlightenment when, in the very near future, we start
>offering our members a choice of being stored by CryoSpan OR being stored
>by Cryonics Institute.
I am very sorry that Dave and others have gotten confused on this. I
try very hard to keep the organizations separate in my mind and writing.
However......
In a packet of letters being used for promotion by CryoCare (cover
letter dated August 29, 1994, but it is being received even by many Alcor
members in the past two weeks), CryoCare President Brenda Peters writes
the following:
"CryoCare's superior corporate/organizational structure has evolved over
the last year from consultations and conferences between some of the
finest and most respected professionals in the world of business, science,
corporate and non-profit law, regulatory affairs, and accounting. This
eliminates the stigma of being a "pseudo-science" organization and
provides us with the ability to integrate with the mainstream business
world. With hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of state of the art
medical equipment, in an operating room that many hospitals would envy,
and a team comprised of medical professionals, *we* also have the
advantage of being able to integrate smoothly with the mainstream medical
world." [emphasis added by me.]
"We?" CryoCare now owns "hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of
medical equipment," "an operating room" and has "a team comprised of
medical professionals?" Wasn't Mike Darwin surprised to hear that? I'll
bet he thought Biopreservation owned all that.
(And off the point, but an interesting question nonetheless: How does
having all of these superior advisors "eliminate the stigma of being a
"pseudo-science" organization?" You're still doing cryonics, aren't you?
It might lessen the stigma; but it doesn't turn cryonicists into
mainstreamers quite yet.)
President Peters goes on:
"During my decade of active involo innt in cryonics I have been
constantly worried about vulnerability to crisis in every form. This
vulnerability is a blueprint for failure. However, with CryoCare, I have
confidence in a structure which insures professionals handling every phase
of cryonics. The reduced risk this provides is critical to our survival.
Having been a medical administrator of an outpatient surgical facility, it
is important to me that we have qualified medical personnel like the
MD/scientist on *our transport team* and MD/scientist who is a director
of CryoCare." [emphasis added by me]
"Our transport team?" Funny, again I thought that CryoCare was
contracting with BioPreservation's transport team. This leads to several
thoughts.
1. How can you criticize others for carelessness in this regard, when
your own President cannot tell the difference?
2. Since the American Cryonics Society also contracts with
Biopreservation and CryoCare on more or less the same basis as CryoCare,
does this mean ACS can also talk about *their* "hundreds of thousands of
dollars of medical equipment" and *their* "Transport Team?"
3. Since one of the claimed advantages of unbundling is the legal
protection of keeping the kindly old membership organization separate from
the rambunctious, risk-loving transport and suspension teams, how much
protection would Brenda's letter give you all in court, if -- should the
worst happen -- you have to claim such separation? This provides "reduced
risk?"
4. Is it CryoCare's intent to pretend to be an "unbundled" organization,
while all cuddled up in the same bed together with its service providers?
Is it that CryoCare's President will use unbundling terminology
sometimes and bundling terminology other times, depending on where the
public relations advantage seems to lie?
Or is it merely that the way this schism occurred last year has placed
people on both sides in a classic "my team vs. your team" situation which
makes us all forget sometimes what we are trying to accomplish?
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3255