From: john grigg (starman125@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 16:43:23 MDT
Hello everyone,
This is a number of posts from cryonet that will conclude with a final
posting by Mike Darwin. Mr. Darwin pulls no punches in explaining how he
feels about others. His reasons seem good I admit even though Robert
Ettinger is sort of a hero figure to me. I found it to be rivetting reading
and I think those who read it will agree. I recommend taking the time to
read all the posts.
Sincerely,
John Grigg
Message #12473
From: "John de Rivaz" <John@longevb.demon.co.uk>
References: <199909280900.FAA28424@rho.pair.com>
Subject: Re: Investing in research
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:31:55 +0100
I cannot profess to understand every detail of the material coming from 21CM
and similar posts, but I re-iterate - once this is a public company people
both within and without the cryonics movement will invest in it. When the
share price is up, you can have rights issues and raise more money. You can
have your web page linked off
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Sauna/3748/shares.htm
and be associated with these major and highly successful companies that are
already doing research that would seem science fiction just a decade ago.
There are a lot of people out there who are vaguely aware of cryonics and
would be far more willing to invest in a biotechnology company doing
fundamental research than they would be to either sign up for
cryopreservation themselves, or invest in a company that offers
cryopreservation *services* right now. Many cryonicists will consider this
irrational, but nevertheless you could get their money as shareholders, and
maybe in the future their custom as cryopreservation members.
-- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, my singles club for people in Cornwall, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #12474 From: "Marty Kardon" <marty@kardon.com> References: <199909290900.FAA28198@rho.pair.com> Subject: internecine conflict Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:13:52 -0400 I am saddened and disturbed by the periodic diatribes that seem to be hurled from time to time in this forum. I realize that people invest substantial personal, mental and financial capital in developing cryonic science and advancing the "cause". In any human endeavor there will be inevitable conflicts, however, it is always unfortunate. In the case of cryonics, the community is too small, the hurdles are too high and the cost is too great for anything but joint cooperation. The advances reported by Mr. Darwin, if they pan out, seem impressive. As much as we need to progress in the science I believe we also need to build all the bridges between us otherwise the amazing things we believe can happen will go the way of the 8 track stereo and the CPM operating system. Just my thoughts. Martin S. Kardon, Esquire Kanter, Bernstein & Kardon 1617 JFK Blvd. Suite 1150 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.568.5885 (voice) 215.568.1294 (fax) marty@kardon.com (e-mail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #12475 From: Ettinger@aol.com Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:03:30 EDT Subject: commentsDarwinEtc Some comments on Darwin's latest post, Cryonet #12472, which I will try to keep non-inflammatory: First, in the interests of lightening things up, I'll allow myself one small "gotcha"-Mike's note that >I would conservatively estimate that Chris [Rasch]has single-handledly put in over >10,000 hours each year, for the past 2 years to evaluate these agents I don't know Mr. Rasch, and don't doubt that he is devoted and competent and works heavy overtime, but if he works 10,000 hours a year he must have cloned himself, since 24 x 365 is less than 10,000. Now I don't want to get into a dissing contest with Mike, and will ignore much that might well be contested, but a few remarks are probably required, in order at least partially to orient newcomers and those with short memories. After heavily emphasizing both the talents and sacrifices of himself and his colleagues, Mike says >This not to denigrate the fine efforts put forth by many on this list who >have worked hard and long for advancing cryobiology or cryonics now, or in >the past. Yes it is. The disclaimer above is pro forma. One of the main points of his post (and many previous) is that most of us are woefully lacking both in brains and merit. In yesterday's post Mike wrote: >As a result of all this, I have become convinced that the only thing that >will get the impact of the progress *already made* through the thick skulls >of cryonicists is when they hear about the revival and cure of the first >*human* cancer patient placed into suspended animation at -120 C or below. Again, he berates us for failing to recognize the magnitude of the recent advances, or to act on that recognition. Yet again I note that much information is still not available to us, and that the initiative for making marketing or licensing proposals lies with the owners of the technology, not the prospective customers. CI--and all the other organizations, I'm sure--want to make all options available to our members, but we can't do it unilaterally. 21CM owns the patents, and ABS has been formed to do the marketing. We are waiting to hear from them. (Well, not just waiting; we also will be testing the new cryoprotectants to the extent we are able.) As a further reiterated note, the quotation (second paragraph above) sounds like a cryonicist talking (if only a cryonicist in the context of 21CM technology). So is you is or is you aint? As for Visser issues, I'll mostly leave those to the Vissers to deal with if they choose. Here I'll merely point to one line in Mike's post yesterday, referring to DMF as an "industrial solvent," with obvious pejorative intent. DMSO is also an "industrial solvent" and so, for that matter, is water. So what? Nor did Mike accurately summarize the literature on DMF in cryobiology. Check for yourselves; e.g. DMF was reported by Nash to provide "complete protection" for red blood cells. See CRYOBIOLOGY (the book by Meryman, 1966). (No, I am not claiming that DMF is likely to prove important in cryobiology.) As to the relations between CI and other organizations, and the reasons therefore, I'll restrict myself to the following. Yes, we (CI) did decide that we should not accept patients from BioPreservation, but I will not review the reasons now because that would merely inflame tempers. In any case, BP is now out of the picture. Mike himself--according to some of his publications and opinions of some who have had considerable contact with him--is also out of the cryonics picture in most respects. Among other things, he expressed the opinion that the chances of cryopreservation patients are near zero--and that was AFTER the discovery and testing of the new cryoprotectants by Wowk, Darwin, Russell and Harris. I don't claim that Mike can't have it both ways. He can. He can claim a large share of credit for important advances and still assert that the chance of revival of patients cryopreserved even by 21CM methods is near zero. And of course he is certainly entitled to downplay the importance of his personal survival if he wishes. But the stance should be clear, without changing the emphasis to suit the occasion. With regard to American Cryonics Society (ACS), the current policy, as recorded in a contract approved by CI and ACS, is that ACS may use any initial service provider it chooses (which would include BP if it were still in that business) but that the patient must be in the sole control of ACS at time of delivery to CI, so that CI need have no dealings with any intermediary other than a funeral director. As to CryoCare patients, Ben Best (now President of CC) attended the CI annual meeting on Sep.19, explained the CC situation, and we are in the process of discussing suitable ways for CC members to choose some or all of CI services. I anticipate a formal offer fairly soon. About CPR: We continue to use and advocate "thumpers" when feasible and appropriate, because (1) continued delivery of some oxygen is better than none, (2) it also helps distribute the anticoagulant and (3) it improves the cooling rate a bit. Finally, a philosophical note. It may often be a good idea (for internal and external effect) to reward those who make "sacrifices" for us, or who help us in any way. At the same time, let no one pretend that his PRIMARY motivation is anything other than to please himself or make his own life better at the bottom line. What Mike and his colleagues do is basically their own choice for their own benefit. Robert Ettinger Cryonics Institute Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:21 MST