X-Message-Number: 6267
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 02:52:33 -0500
Subject: Cosenza Post Mortem

Dave Cosenza writes:

>The case that you referred to that Alcor participated 
>in was published in Cryonics Magazine at the time (see the article 
>"Worst Case Senerio"), and so it doesn't really follow that Alcor acted 
>inappropriately in any way, shape, or form with respect to this particular 
>case.

	And if publication is the standard by which we judge
appropriate conduct, then neither did ACS act inappropriately
in the freezing of the disinterred Canadian girl (published in
The Immortalist, April, 1995).  But this is besides the point.
It is "" who is all worked about the ethics 
of freezing long-dead bodies, and it is he that you need to reply
to, not me.   

>As for this Canadian case that seems to have become a topic of 
>discussion, and was handled by BPI for some cryonics organization (I 
>don't know which), was MORE than a mere last minute case since 
>the girl in question had already been buried for several weeks.

	Actually the Canadian case was FAR better biologically
than the Alcor case in question.  The Canadian girl's body
was near freezing the whole time, with the brain intact in
the cranium.  Upon removal, that brain was in excellent 
condition on a gross level (no sign of microbial decomposition,
not easily distinguishable from ones I've seen removed from fresh
cadavers.)  Microbial decomposition spreads from the gut outward.
Therefore a brain that is sectioned (!) and sewen into the gut
(assuming it wasn't discarded completely) is going to go very
bad very fast.

	Anyway, this should all be academic.  I think we both
agree that these kinds of cases are biologically indefensibisble
(i.e. they are NOT the kinds of cases that we want to exemplify,
or be identified with, the practice of cryonics).


>I know 
>only of a very vague mention of the case on this list, and second hand 
>reports that Mike Darwin had been detained for lying to Canadian 
>immigration authorities and was BANNED from ever working in Canada.

	In point of fact, it was learned from that encounter that
ALL AMERICAN CRYONICS SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE BANNED FROM WORKING
IN CANADA (without filing paperwork months ahead of time), and have
been ever since NAFTA.  This has nothing to do with Mike Darwin
personally.  CryoCare is now incorporating a Canadian subsidiary
to deal with this problem (giving us a legal mechanism to bring
in U.S. contractors at a moment's notice).  Oh, and by the way,
Mike Darwin has been *back* in Canada as recently as a couple of
months ago on cryonics business (having been granted a government
"Minister's Permit" as a cryonics consultant).


>As for the insinuation that I (or any of my friends or family) had anything 
>to do with the post that started this flamage, all I can say is that 
>you'd be better served by answering the substance of issues rather than 
>always looking for an ad hominem response.

	Someone violates the confidence of details of my mother's
cryopreservation, goes on to call me a grave robber (of children!),
and you say that my response is not answering the substance of
issues?  You call posts like that... issues?    

	And what insinuation and ad hominem response are you talking
about anyway?  All I said was, "As if we don't all know who did it." 
There wasn't ANYTHING in my post that referred to you or anyone
close to you.  Why, then, are you talking this so personally?
What possible resemblance is there between the writing of
"" and your writing that has you so concerned that
I've publicly fingered you?  Please tell us, Dave, or people
might think you have a guilty conscience or something. 

***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6267