X-Message-Number: 9479
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:12:00 EDT
Subject: Platt's Artful Dodging


Platt's #9469 continues the pattern of refusal to admit his repeated

This is tiresome, but some readers only remember the last thing they heard,
unfortunately, so I have to fill in the background again:

In his series of attacks beginning with Cryonet #9403, April 3, Platt asserted
as fact that the Ukrainians had not duplicated the CI sheep head work, because
the Ukrainians used ramped concentrations of glycerine and the CI work did
not. He said that the Ukrainian report of relatively good results (so
characterized by them), including no cracking, therefore implied nothing about
the CI work. He repeated this false assertion several times in later posts on
Cryonet and Sci. Cryonics.

I repeatedly pointed to the record of reports published in THE IMMORTALIST in
1994. He finally admitted that he did NOT know his assertions to be factual,
but was relying on a vague memory. Nevertheless, he refused to acknowledge
that it was wrong to have done this.

Remember, the reports in 1994 said explicitly that they HAD followed our
procedure. That was their exact agreed assignment--to duplicate the CI sheep
head work as closely as possible and evaluate the results as accurately as
they could. 

When I pointed out that Platt was in effect accusing Dr. Pichugin and Prof.
Zhegunov of material misrepresentation, and of not fulfilling their
assignment--in other words, of fraud--he responded by advising me not to be so
"shrill." This is classic obfuscation.

Continuing his artful dodging (well, artful only to the na´ve or inattentive,
I should think), he tries again (#9469) to change the subject and shift
attention. Noting now that Pichugin ramped up glycerine in a LATER experiment
the following year, he nevertheless says (to me): "Until now, you denied that
there was any difference between Pichugin's studies and CI's protocol." 

NOT TRUE, as he very well knows. The ONLY study I referred to was the one that
DID duplicate the CI work, the study done and reported in 1994. 

(In a still later study, supported by CI and IS, Dr. Pichugin obtained some
unprecedented results with rabbit brain pieces, also published in THE
IMMORTALIST. Perhaps Platt will accuse me of associating that with the CI
procedures also. These were all different studies, done at different times,
with different objectives. The ONE that counts in this exchange is the 1994

Further attempting to divert attention, he accuses me in effect of denying
that osmotic shock is a problem and that ramping glycerine can alleviate it.
He KNOWS I have never said any such thing, but on the contrary have EXPLICITLY
acknowledged that osmotic shock is a problem and that we will continue to
investigate ways to ramp up without producing worse problems. (His next
response, no doubt, will be to offer advice and references on how to do this,
without addressing the issue of his repeated false claims and libels and
continuing refusal to take responsibility for them.)  

As previously noted, I have many other responses to make to Platt and Darwin,
as time permits, but I will not let go of this issue of Platt's
misrepresentation on this particular question until either (a) he acknowledges
he was wrong, or (b) enough responses from others tell me that the message has
been received.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9479