X-Message-Number: 5981
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 16:04:41 +0100
From: John de Rivaz <>
Subject: Re: Funding and probability

Not, it is happening now. An instance occurred a few days after I wrote the 
piece copied below. I practice what I preach and have a range of 
pharmaceutical stocks, one of which is Warner Lambert. Here is what I have 
written for next month's "Comments from Cornwall" (in The Immortalist)

                        Bullish Annual Report from
                              Warner Lambert

An aggressive, bullish annual report came from the pharmaceutical giant 
Warner Lambert this year. In 1996 the company plans to offer for marketing 
approval a new drug for diabetes, said to have the potential to be the 
company's best selling pharmaceutical. In addition, it is to offer what it 
claims to be the best lipid-lowering agent ever made.

Two revolutions are sweeping though its research program, one being more 
powerful ways of testing drugs, and the other being better methods of 
synethesising them. Previously, their best chemists could only synetheise 
about 50 new compounds/yr. Now the figure is measured in thousands. In 
terms of isolating new compounds, the figure has risen from 5,000/yr to 

Following these statements, the company acknowledges the importance of the 
diseases of ageing. 

Troglitazone is the diabetes drug. It works by improving glucose management 
reducing or eliminating the need for insulin injections. It may also delay 
the onset of the disease in people in pre-daibetic conditions. I wouldn't 
be suprised if it gets the attention of life extension authors. [chemical 
name not given, sorry]

Atorvastatin is another name you may be reading in life-extension 
publications in the future. It works by reducing LDL cholesterol and 
triglycerides. They claim that it is a "super statin" and if far better 
than existing products and can achieve results previously unattainable to 
patients with severe LDL levels.

The remarks about synthesising new drugs speak for themsleves. I showed the 
actual printed company report to an investment advisor I happened to meet 
the other day, and he was clearly unable to take in the implications of the 
ratios mentioned. Most such professionals still put their clients in fixed 
interest goivernment bonds or "safe" food service industries such as 
restaurants or hotels. He said that to do anything else is reckless.

Yet one cannot use technology to wait at table, cook meals or tidy 
bedrooms. These industries that attract professionally managed (ie most) 
funds are static, except for flurries caused by changes in management, 
takeovers etc.

That leaves the technology companies and companies that will benefit from 
technology ridiculously cheap for what they are, because the funds that 
people should be investing with them are being placed in "safe" places 
instead. Without anything else, the changes reported by Warner Lambert in 
its research methods indicate a 20 to 1 increase in its stock price, and I 
am sure that will be in place over the next 5 to 10 years as the economic 
realities are forced into the professional consciousness by balance sheet 
figures. And these changes aren't exclusive to it - they apply to every 
pharmaceutical company, and probably many other companies relying on 

If you still don't beleive me, then take a conservative stance. Put 10% of 
your funds into technology stocks, taking advice from technology investment 
experts. Expect to pay several hundred dollars for a good newsletter, but 
you'll earn thousands of dollars each year as a result. Then over the years 
compare the performance with the remaining 90%. Of course they won't go up 
all the time, but you will after five years or so want to move the rest of 
your investment funds into this sector. In fact being cautious myself this 
is exactly what I have been doing over many years. I got rid of the last 
batch of conventional stocks only the other week. - had I been braver I 
would be a lot better off today! 

In article: <> 
> Message #5964
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:01:28 -0500
> From: <> (Jeffrey Soreff)
> Subject: Re: Funding and probability (was Untitled)
> John de Rivaz wrote:
> >Have you considered the argument that for cryonics to succeed we need
> >enormous advances in technology, advances which are not accepted as
> >possible by the mainstream establishment. The mainstream view is 
> >by stock market quotations for stocks.
> >Therefore if cryonics succeed, we will be revived into a world where 
> >prices are substantially different to anything present professional
> >projections could produce. We can make projections using data they do 
> >have. As we get nearer that future (even in this side of suspension)
> >technology stocks on average will rise faster than professionals would
> >be able predict using their present mind-sets.
> ....
> >If I am wrong and technology stocks do not substantially outperform the
> >markets in the long term, then it could be due to the failure of 
> >to deliver or the failure of society to allow it to deliver (eg by 
> >progress by regulation and preventing the scientific method of "standing 
> >the shoulders of giants" with intellectual property laws). In this 
> >it is also likely that cryonics revivals will not happen, so little has
> >been lost.
> That is a very interesting idea.  In principle, I agree with you for the 
> term.  (Come to think of it, did you propose this idea at one point as a 
> to fund the *revival* of cryonics patients?  That period is very likely 
> have fully functional nanotechnology, and indeed to have different market
> prices than at present.)  I'm less convinced that this helps all that 
> prior to suspension.  If funding for nanotechnology is scarce, and it 
> 50 years till the first diamondoid assembler is built, stock prices could 
> unaffected at the time that I'm frozen.
> I very much like the idea of funding a conditional expense based on the 
> effects correlated with the condition.  Very neat, though I'm not sure 
that the
> time scale for this particular correlation works out properly.  I do 
> with what I think you were implying: Funding a conditional expense via 
> correlations reduces it's effective cost.  In terms of my original 
> this reduces the crossover probability at which planning for suspension 
is a
> good choice.  Any thoughts on what value it takes under your assumptions?
>                                                    -Jeffrey Soreff
Sincerely,     ****************************************       
               * Publisher of        Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz  *                     Fractal Report   *
               *          details on request          *
In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
because giving information does not decrease your information.
                Fast loading, very few slow pictures

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5981