X-Message-Number: 7051
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Discovery channel cryonics program

I wonder how other people reacted to the Discovery channel show. 
Personally I think it made cryonics look no more or less plausible than a 
religious faith. A nice, well-meaning, low-key kind of faith, but still a 
matter of faith rather than science. So--who is to blame for this? The 
people who made the show, or cryonicists like us?

The Discovery team spent an afternoon talking to (and filming) me. They
very much wanted someone who had the necessary credentials to rebut the
cryobiologists--but of course I'm not a biologist, and neither is Ralph
Merkle. Greg Fahy and Mike Darwin chose not to make themselves available,
and consequently the only answer that the show presented, in response to
the specter of freezing damage, was nanotech, which simply doesn't come
across plausibly in comparison with present-day science. 

Overall, I am somewhat depressed to see how unconvincing cryonics appears
through the eyes of some moderately sympathetic, but detached, media
people who usually make shows about bona-fide medical topics. 

I believe the only answer is simply to do the necessary research so we can
demonstrate reversible brain cryopreservation. This will do a whole lot
more for cryonics than Miles the Beagle and hamsters dying of massive
internal injuries two hours after being rewarmed from -10 Celsius.

--Charles Platt


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7051