X-Message-Number: 9514
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CryoCare Policy

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Peter Merel wrote:

> taking on the cryopreservation services. But am I hearing right that CC 
> is closing its doors to new members? Or is it just not actively campaigning
> for them? 

I'll give a rough personal answer to your message, since a firm policy 
has not been established yet by CryoCare's directors, and we're in a time 
of transition.

For the past couple of years I questioned whether CryoCare should pursue
growth actively, since we had some catching up to do in administrative
areas--partly because, when CryoCare was first formed, we grew so rapidly
(from zero to 80 members in just a few months, which sounds paltry but
involved a great deal of work, since cryonics signups can ONLY be done on
a person-to-person basis, and every case usually turns out to be a special
case in some way or another). Also, as described in a previous issue of
CryoCare Report, we were reevaluating the wisdom of accepting last-minute
cases. Most of them we ended up referring to other cryonics organizations
(ACS, Alcor, or CI), though one of them we did accept.

So, during the past couple of years we did virtually no promotion (I
referred almost all media inquiries to Alcor). We continued publishing
CryoCare Report, maintaining our web site, and staffing a table at a
couple of science-fiction conventions and anti-aging conferences, but that
was all. Currently, since we are not looking actively for new members, we 
have suspended publication of CryoCare Report and are circulating a 
smaller newsletter for our existing members only.

Recently I posted results here of a simulation that I wrote, examining 
the possible penalties of growth. These turned out to be less than I had 
expected. Consequently, speaking personally, I would like to resume 
promoting CryoCare more actively.

At the same time, however, Mike Darwin has made it known that (like many
cryonics activists in their forties) he doesn't want to go on doing what
he's doing forever. He has personal ethical problems about offering
cryonics services, so long as there is no way of assessing the impact of
procedures on future brain function. And, like the rest of the people at
21st Century Medicine, he wants to conduct research without the threat of
having to drop everything, rebuild a perfusion circuit at short notice,
and fly to some distant city to conduct a standby which, in a worst-case
scenario, could last for weeks. Doing standbys, right now, is like eating
the seed corn.  We will benefit much more if we plant it and reap the
harvest later--in the form of reversible brain cryopreservation
(ultimately, we hope). 

Under these circumstances, CryoCare would be foolish to overburden its 
service provider. 

As I understand it, Alcor is following a similar policy, for similar
reasons: they are devoting a great deal of time and energy to developing
local teams and rebuilding their capability to perform cryopreservations,
and are avoiding last-minute cases in the meantime. If I'm wrong about
this, I hope Fred or Linda Chamberlain will correct me. 

BioTransport was proposed by Fred and Linda as the answer to all our 
problems ("our" meaning Alcor and CryoCare). With new capitalization and 
technology licensed from BioPreservation and 21st Century Medicine, it 
would give Alcor members better-quality cryonics while providing CryoCare 
members with a new service provider in addition to BioPreservation. Who 
could ask for more? Of course, there's a snag: it's going to take a lot 
of time and money.

That's the situation as I understand it. I have no information for you 
about Trans-Time, and I'm not sure what the relationship (if any) will be 
between ACS and BioTransport, or CI and BioTransport. I suggest you call 
them and ask.

I guess the bottom line, in response to your inquiry, is: if someone came
to CryoCare tomorrow and asked to join, I would say "yes," providing the
new member was properly funded, understood the uncertainties of cryonics,
and was not a last-minute case needing imminent cryopreservation. Indeed,
I am in the process of signing up a new member right now, who fits this
profile, and I expect a couple more this year. 

But at this time we are not *actively soliciting* members.

--Charles Platt
President, CryoCare

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9514