X-Message-Number: 6930 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:01:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: To Bob Ettinger On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Bob Ettinger wrote: > All right, picture this. Responsible outsiders--journalists, scientists, > business people--are in the CI lab, SEEING what happens. They watch a heart > for (say) 12 hours in liquid nitrogen, or even more, to be sure it's well and > truly down there. Then they or their relief teams watch the warmup and > washout etc., and SEE the heart resume beating. Then, according to Platt, the > members of the "scientific community"--those who weren't there (and those who > were there?) would "not take this seriously." And Platt apparently approves > of such an attitude. I already pointed out in relentless detail that your sheep heart would have an unknown history and an unknown amount of prior damage, making a properly controlled experiment impossible; and this would prevent other scientists from meaningfully confirming your results. An experiment which is not properly controlled is amateurish, and cannot be taken as seriously as an experiment that IS properly controlled. Your text above suggests you are mainly concerned with impressing journalists. Well, fine, go for it! But don't call it scientific research. > Now, I don't believe for a moment that Platt himself wouldn't take it > seriously. I think his remarks are agenda-driven. I would ONLY take it seriously as confirmation that the cryoprotectant solution is very interesting stuff. I would not take it seriously as research, for reasons stated above. The way I see it, my "agenda" is to get myself properly frozen. I don't care whose protocol I use or who administers it. I'll give money to anyone who seems to have a rational plan for improving my chances. But I believe my chances will go up a lot faster if cryonics can ever put its amateur status behind it, and one big step in that direction would be to stop thinking in terms of media stunts. > Neither do I believe the "scientific community" wouldn't take it seriously, > with some exceptions. But if anyone would really dismiss the event because of > its amateur sponsorship, that could only be characterized as psychopathology, > not science. I have talked to some scientists who refuse to believe that Suda did what he did with cat brains. Even though I cite the paper in Nature, these people simply refuse to believe it! THIS is the degree of skepticism out there, and you're DEFINITELY not going to dent it via a do-it-yourself experiment using sheep hearts from a slaughterhouse. One last thought about seemingly partisan attitudes: I was one of the people at CryoCare who argued VERY strongly for allowing our members the option to be stored at your organization, CI. I believe in maintaining as many options as possible, and I have no "brand loyalties." If another organization showed me it could freeze me better than BioPreservation, for a similar price, I would switch (with regrets and apologies to Mike Darwin). Fortunately CryoCare enables this kind of choice. The fact that we took a lot of trouble to write it into our bylaws (which I helped to create) demonstrates that we are not wedded to any one protocol by any one provider. The same kind of pragmatic attitude applies to research. I don't care who does it, as long as it's done right. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6930