CryoNet #32073 - #32079

CryoNet - Sat 17 Oct 2009

    #32073: Many thanks for the open discussion! [Melody%20Maxim]
    #32074: Transtime's spin-off's subsidiary [John de Rivaz]
    #32075: Re: CryoNet Rating System and Message Content Suppression [David Stodolsky]
    #32076: Re: mp3 of LJ on Thom Hartmann's show [David Stodolsky]
    #32077: Re: Melody's comments [Tripper McCarthy]
    #32078: Thank You Melody and Eveyone Else Who Commented [Tripper McCarthy]
    #32079: ethics of neuro-enhancement [Robert R Newport]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32073%2D32079

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32073
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:23:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody%20Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Many thanks for the open discussion!

Many thanks to Tripper McCarthy, Mike Perry, and Keith Henson, for their willingness to engage in open discussion. Even greater thanks to Kitty Antonik Wakfer for her post, regarding the attempts of others to prevent my posts from appearing in the Cryonet emails. Everyone is intelligent enough to realize the people rating my posts as "flamebait" are probably the same people who have previously responded to my criticisms with blatant lies, (many which had to be retracted and apologized for, because I could prove they were lies), and personal attacks. Resorting to these tactics seems to indicate these people must feel they have no legitimate responses to my criticims. All of you should be concerned about such activities, as they will cause more harm than good, to the cryonics industry. At th
 e very least, these people are like children, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming at the tops of their lungs, so they don't have to hear what they don't want to hear. At worst, they are people who are attempting to cover up issues that should be addressed, not ignored and continued to the point of leaving cryonics as a subject of ridicule, and constantly under the threat of being banned, for another three, or four, decades.

Some of the objections to my criticisms are quite valid. Sometimes I am just plain wrong, but at other times I am playing "devil's advocate." If we want the science of cryonics to have an opportunity to advance, the people in leadership positions need to think about how the industry appears to the general population and, ESPECIALLY, to medical professionals who might be willing to work in cryonics, if it were not for all the ethical issues, the fairly-constant low level of professionalism, and the resulting negative publicity. Keith Henson can give me logical arguments about dumping biohazardous wastes down the sewer, but a blatant disregard for OSHA violations is a sure way to cause serious trouble for an organization. Also, the point I was trying to make, with the ball peen hammer was th
 at Alcor should have simply stated that it didn't matter if they used such an instrument. They shouldn't have tried to pass it off as something it wasn't, because doing so makes them look dishonest. The logical answer would have been that it's silly to worry about infection, for someone who needs technology to advance to the point where he can have a new body! Of course, in the eyes of the public, that still brings Alcor back to having seemingly very unqualified people performing decapitations, with tools from Sears. Unhfortunately, I think that's a pretty accurate portrayal, but much more importantly, I see no reason for the situation to remain that way.

Cryonicists need to acknowledge that they are only a few thousand strong, (actually, if we count only the people making decisions for the industry, that would be, "only a few DOZEN strong"), and realize they need to behave in a manner that will be more acceptable to the general population, which includes many thousands of medical professionals who have participated in hypothermic arrest cases, and who would be appalled, at most of the cryonics case reports I have ever read. Keith's argument regarding the low number of cases is invalid, in my opinion. There are tens of thousands of people who know how to competently perform vascular cannulations and perfusion, and I don't believe it would be as difficult to find qualified personnel, as many "cryonics experts" would have the community contin
 ue to believe. Keith should consider that there might have been a greatly increased number of cases, a long time ago, if it were not for some extremely unprofessional behavior, and a total failure to competently provide hypothermic procedures that have been well-established, in conventional medicine, for many decades. One critical mistake is thinking the organizations will EVER be able to train amateurs to competently perform vascular cannulations and perfusion, with the low number of cases, especially when there is no reason for them to be training amateurs, in the first place.

I will write a lot more on this topic, very soon, both here and on my blog. I would like to take my time and give some thoughtful answers to all the questions that have been raised, but for now, I am going to try to set cryonics aside, briefly, and enjoy the weekend. (If I don't, my family may disown me!) Thanks again, for the encouragement of a few open minds, and please try to convince the moderator to improve the ratings system. I think Kitty's suggestion of identifying the people who provide ratings is a good one.

Sincerely,

Melody Maxim

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32073

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32074
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
Subject: Transtime's spin-off's subsidiary
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:19:28 +0100

BioTime, Inc. (OTCBB:BTIM) announced today that it has organized a new subsidiary, OncoCyte Corporation, for the purpose of developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of cancer based on stem cell technology. BioTime will license certain technology to the new company restricted to the field of cell-based cancer therapies, including early patent filings on targeting stem cells to malignant tumors. A private investor has purchased 3,000,000 common shares of OncoCyte for $2 million, representing an initial 15% stake in the new company, and the investor has the option of purchasing an additional 3,000,000 common shares for $2 million on or before April 15, 2010, based on an agreed initial market cap of approximately $15,000,000. 

more on http://www.investorcalendar.com/includes/PRNPressRelease.asp?ID=1539801

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32074

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32075
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet Rating System and Message Content Suppression
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:12:25 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 16 Oct 2009, at 11:00 AM, Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:

> For this rating system to be of true value, the raters need to be
> identified, by at least the identity they use to receive messages (so
> that the censors themselves can be judged and possibly censored by
> others).

>  Surely non-rated messages should contribute to a
> poster's "reputation" as "acceptable" since they at least were not
> objectionable. However, I do not see this in Kevin's system.

I had extensive communication with Kevin when the Rating System was  
started, pointing out the above problems and others. I also  
transmitted my published articles in the hopes that a theoretically  
solid model would be employed:


Extended abstract:

Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific  
communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd  
International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7,  
127-137.

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14


Comprehensive

Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals  
based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). [1994 version  
in N. P. Gleditsch, P. H. Enckell, & J. Burchardt (Eds.), Det  
videnskabelige tidsskrift (The scientific journal) (pp. 151-160).  
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. (Tema NORD 1994: 574)]

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19


The latest (includes citation to an implementation attempt):

Stodolsky, D. (2002). Scientific publication needs a peer consensus.  
Psycoloquy, 13(2).

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$20


Discussion of organizational impacts of the system:

Stodolsky, D. (1994). Telematic journals and organizational control:  
Integrity, authority, and self-regulation. Interpersonal Computing and  
Technology, 2(1).

<http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1994/n1/stodolsk.txt>


Implementation of my model would be straight forward for someone that  
has programming skills. I already have the software to do the  
consensus calculations needed. So, if I received the ratings in an  
appropriate format, the calculations could be done and sent back to  
the System automatically.

The current System promotes censorship and dishonesty (attempts to  
beat the Rating System by strategic responding). Since the entire  
business model of the Industry is based upon trust, this is a  
continuing public relations disaster. Yet another example of amateur  
social science going wrong.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32075

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32076
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: mp3 of LJ on Thom Hartmann's show
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:13:44 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 16 Oct 2009, at 11:00 AM, Mark Plus wrote:

> http://www.box.net/shared/static/uncf4r3jpc.mp3

What I found most incriminating was that a cat is allowed to rome  
about in what aims to be (ideally) a medical class facility. With lots  
of sensitive equipment around, this could cause major problems. Cats  
have claws and teeth that can disrupt electrical cables, etc. They can  
engage in a range of disruptive behaviors and be difficult to control  
due to their climbing ability, etc. They and their excrement often  
attract bugs. The presence of bugs in animal laboratories is known to  
be responsible for unreliability and failure of computer equipment, etc.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32076

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32077
From: Tripper McCarthy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Melody's comments
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:39:15 +0000

--_519d3467-140f-4998-b112-6f67dc6a7f2d_


<< Melody's Comment -
Then, there was the time Alcor tried to pass off a ball peen hammer as a medical mallet.
>>

<<Keith's reply -
That wasn't needed.  The problem is explaining why it is ok to use
ordinary tools when people are frozen to LN2 temperature.
Microorganisms just are not a problem at that temperature.  And any
technology up to recovering someone will not have any problem sorting
the patient out from other stuff.
>>

I understand your logic here, but from a perception (and PR) standpoint it just doesn't look good (or professional) to be using an ordinary hammer and chisel on a person's body. It also doesn't look good to state that it was a medical mallet when it wasn't (at least that is what is alleged - I don't have a link or quote so I can't really make a stand one way or the other on this).

I think any instrument being used on a patient should be a medical grade instrument, if such exists. It should probably be sterilized too for good measure. Not to do so (even when reason may dictate that it doesn't really matter) just makes us look unprofessional and amateurish. And I don't believe this change would be place an undo burden upon Alcor.

<<Melody's comment -
Pouring biohazardous waste down city sewer systems
>>
<< Keith's reply -
Melody, think about it.  Every time you flush the toilet biohazard
waste goes down the city sewer system.  It's the function of sewers
and treatment plants to accept such waste and make it safe
>>

Alcor should follow (if they don't already) all laws and guidelines when disposing of biological or hazardous material. A set of standard operating procedures should exist for handling these situations both on and off site. It isn't fair to put people like Kieth in the situation he was in with no clear guidelines of what to do.

Tripper
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
--_519d3467-140f-4998-b112-6f67dc6a7f2d_

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32077

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32078
From: Tripper McCarthy <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank You Melody and Eveyone Else Who Commented
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:23:25 +0000

--_d6fdba0f-4b15-47fa-9b7a-5e7a55ea953f_


I would like to first thank Melody for taking the time (and take as much as you need) to answer my questions. They were seriously and genuinely asked and I'm grateful you are treating them as such. I would also like to thank Mike, Keith, and Kitty for joining in the discussion. In regards to Kitty's comments about the Cryonet ratings for Melody's posts, this all just seems a bit silly to me. We may not all agree with each other, but censoring someone out like Melody just seems wrong. I would encourage everyone who feels the same to go to cryonet.org, find Melody's current and old postings, and give them a positive rating so she can once again be heard by everyone. 

I don't think there is one person in our community who doesn't think that the cryonics industry couldn't stand to be improved. Out of the media storm we are currently in I think there is a golden opportunity to take a hard look at how the industry is currently run and how we might improve it. This hard look entails exploring both our held assumptions and the specific details on how we do (or could do) cryo-preservations. I know not everyone agrees (or is going to agree) with all the proposed solutions out there. But there has to be some common ground which we can at least start with. My hope is that at the end of this we can have some solid and well thought out recommendations for change to present to Alcor/CI/SA etc.

One last thing I would like to implore to the community during this discussion is to keep the personal snipes to a minimum. I know that is hard right now with all the bad press. But I think at the end of the day everyone wants the same thing, a top notch cryonics industry that gives the best preservations possible. Let's not lose sight of that in battles over how to get there.

Tripper McCarthy


 		 	   		  
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
--_d6fdba0f-4b15-47fa-9b7a-5e7a55ea953f_

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32078

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32079
From: "Robert R Newport" <[email protected]>
Subject: ethics of neuro-enhancement
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:39:23 -0500

Hi Everyone: This notice <
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/710289?sssdmh=dm1.543404
<http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/710289?sssdmh=dm1.543404&src=ddd&uac=12
9571CR> &src=ddd&uac=129571CR> from the American Academy of Neurology may be
of interest to some of us. Turns out that it IS ethical for physicians to
prescribe neuro-enhancers for non-pathologies in healthy people. Surprised
me, but I am glad, it is rational and sets the stage for further
investigation into optimal brain functioning. Dr. Robert Newport



 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32079

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************