X-Message-Number: 9567
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:01:20 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: Saul Kent's View

Ettinger wrote:

> However, as I understand
> it, both ICN and 21CM have their own hippocampal slice projects.

This is incorrect. I don't know where you get these wrong notions.

> We remember all too clearly
> the long misunderstandings between 21CM and Wakfer's Prometheus Project,

They were not "long". What could be classified as
"misunderstandings" occurred over a time period of
about of one month (in January of this year).

> culminating in the collapse of the latter,

Nor has the Prometheus Project "collapsed". Because of the strong
emergence of 21CM, PP simply may be unnecessary in its initially
conceived form. What happens to it and *my* other vehicles to promote
and achieve perfected suspended animation will become clearer in time,
perhaps by the end of this year. In any case, all things shift and
change in response to input from events in reality as they must.

> after years of effort

Not "years" of effort. Only 1.5 years of almost totally
*my* effort. If *I* don't count it as wasted, others
have no right to do so, since they put little into it.

> and assurances of mutual understanding and trust.

These were not fully written down and may have been
misunderstood by some (or all) parties. Events and new
conditions often change previous plans (and usually for
the best). One could just as easily "blame" the lack of
support from CI for the "collapse" of PP.

> There is also the third party, the
> university. How does it fit together?

Have you read the web site at http://neurocryo.org yet?
The proposals by INC to the research institute are detailed
there. Of course, things will not be fully worked out until
a mutually agreeable project agreement between INC and the
is accepted by both parties. Business details are often,
for very good reasons, best kept private.

A detailed agreement between INC and 21CM is waiting the
acceptance of the project by the research institute.

> Paul's explanations fall short, and so
> far so do Saul's.

Bob, I fear that no matter what we say you will not be satisfied. 

> Even though cryobiology has been greatly understaffed and underfunded,
> the total work done by all the non-cryonicist cryobiologists has greatly
> exceeded that done by cryonics-friendly cryobiologists, with relatively small
> results.

But mostly on things totally unrelated to perfecting suspended animation
which they abandoned in the 70s largely because of the "taint" from
cryonics.

> Small results may well continue for decades. There were several points in the

> history of cryobiology where "breakthroughs" raised optimism, such as 
Rostand's
> original work with frog sperm, Suda's cat brains, blood cryobanking, a few
> successes with mammalian small organs and tissues, etc. In each case, the

> follow-through proved much harder than expected. That this will happen again 
is
> not foregone by any means, and we should try to achieve a better outcome--but

> those chickens may take a long time to hatch, and many of us don't have a long
> time, as Saul notes for himself.

Then we better get right to it, instead of dragging our feet! Right?
 
> 5. While acknowledging that there are many contributing reasons for the tiny
> numbers in cryonics, Saul says the major reason is a product not proven to
> work. Well, there are much more clearly unproven products (even clearly
> fraudulent ones) that have been much more successful--the various fads and
> cults, astrology, dianetics, etc. So there is plenty of room there for study
> and improvement.

Does this mean you are suggesting that we sell cryonics by the same
mystical, fraudulent, misleading methods which make those things
successful?
 
> 7. Saul speaks of the "intense desire for survival on the part of virtually
> everyone on earth," and our "failure" in spite of this. I have often pointed
> out that the so-called "survival instinct" is reliable only in clear and
> present danger--and even then only if the individual is still relatively
> healthy and vigorous. If the danger is indirect, or remote in time, or if the
> person is weak or depressed--or even if required action would violate
> established habits--forget the "survival instinct." It isn't that simple.

This one I agree with. I made essentially the same comment earlier.
But I don't think that Saul is referring to just a survival "instinct".
 
The rest I will leave for Saul and others.

-- Paul --

 Voice/Fax: 416-968-6291 Page: 800-805-2870
The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
Perfected cryopreservation of Central Nervous System tissue
for neuroscience research and medical repair of brain diseases

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9567