CryoNet #32461 - #32469

CryoNet - Tue 9 Mar 2010

    #32461: Cost of Neuro vs. Whole Body Cryopreservation [Melody Maxim]
    #32462: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460 [David Stodolsky]
    #32463: No Subject [david pizer]
    #32464: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460 [Michael Smith]
    #32465: No Subject [david pizer]
    #32466: Re: CryoNet #32460 - Rudi's Statements about Variable Annuiti... [Kitty Antonik Wakfer]
    #32467: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460 [John Clark]
    #32468: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460 [John Clark]
    #32469: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer] [Mike Perry]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32461%2D32469

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
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.


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

Message #32461
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:10:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Cost of Neuro vs. Whole Body Cryopreservation

In post #32459, Mathew Sullivan writes: 

>>"Also, Dave neglects to consider that 
vitrification solutions used today are VERY expensive, and neuro patients 
only require a small fraction of what is required for whole body patients."<< 

Mathew Sullivan neglects to consider that it is not necessary to perfuse the entire body with the expensive vitrification solutions, in order to avoid the negative publicity associated with decapitations. Ironically, many people claim Cryonics Institute does not do "neuros," but for all intents and purposes, they are actually performing neuro-vitrification on most, (if not all), of their cryopreserved members, by isolating the head vessels. In other words, they perfuse only the head with the vitrification solutions, while leaving the body attached. In addition to preventing clots, which may have formed in the body, from being pushed into the head vessels during whole body perfusion, this practice avoids a lot of negative publicity.

I agree with David Pizer, and everyone else who argues that decapitations are bad for the public image of cryonics, especially when Alcor has frequently allowed persons with little, (perhaps no), more formal education than a high school diploma, to perform these procedures, which certainly would appear gruesome, to the average person.

Melody Maxim

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32461

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

Message #32462
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:29:33 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 8 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Mike says: "... the negative publicity is overrated."
>
> Pizer: I have talked to thousands of individuals and groups on  
> cryonics over the years and Mike is just plain *DEAD* wrong.    
> People won't always tell a cryonicists, to his face, that they  
> detest Neuros, so a while ago when we were speaking to groups we let  
> the audience fill out cards after the talk (without revealing their  
> identity) about what they thought of our talk and cryonics in  
> general and they detest Neuros.  It is the single one thing that  
> turns them against cryonics and against Alcor!

It is difficult to draw any conclusion without controlling for the  
relationship between approval of cryonics and approval of neuro. For  
example, it could be that people have an overwhelmingly negative  
reaction to neuro, but those who approve of cryonics don't. Therefore,  
it could be that the people who would consider signing up are not  
negative to neuro.

If anyone is going to be collecting data like this, they can send me  
the forms in advanced. This will allow us to draw some conclusions  
about these issues.

Since ALCOR and CI differ in offering neuro, a comparison of data from  
them might also throw some light on this question. Unfortunately, at  
the moment I am not seeing even the most basic data that could be  
useful.

If public opinion was being sampled on a routine basis, we could  
probably say something about attitudes related to neuro.


> MIKE: the negative publicity is overrated., no neuropreservation has  
> ever terminated. No lawsuit has ever been instigated *because*  
> someone was preserved as a neuro rather than whole body.
>
> PIZER:  Hundred of Alcor memberships have been canceled over the  
> years.  I believe it is because (in some/many cases) the relatives  
> of the member hate Alcor so much - mainly because the are sicken by  
> the Neuro option that we offer.  (In other cases, I believe, it is  
> because the relatives know if the member cancels "they" can get the  
> proceeds of the funding vehicle.)

This could be investigated with data on cancellations of neuro vs.  
whole body contracts, by including info on the funding method.


> And the consequence of forcing members to take out a larger life  
> insurance
> policy would only serve to increase the bounty on the heads of  
> members (no
> pun intended) for family members who would be tempted to cash in by
> interfering.

This hypothesis could be tested with data on cancellations vs. funding  
method.


> I've talked to many people over the years and it isn't neuro
> preservation that is the key issue here, but our inability to bring  
> back a
> whole organism such as a monkey or dog, etc.

A widely held belief that is not supported by the data we currently  
have and which is not true for about a third of the US population.


We are talking about multi-million dollar decisions here and there has  
yet to be a single dollar invested in getting answers that are more  
than guess work. A lot of the data needed is already being collected,  
but not being used. Does anyone have an idea of how we can get due  
diligence in these life and death decisions?


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32462

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

Message #32463
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:35:40 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <[email protected]>

CRYOFAN SAID:  If those who want Alcor to no longer offer neuro get their way, hundreds of cryonicists will be forced to become EX cryos. That is a distinct possibility.  Whole body costs 120K dollars or thereabouts. Correct me if I am wrong. Neuro costs 80K and even lower for those of us grandfathered in.  Many of us cannot afford to pay the extra money. So this anti-neuro movement among (wealthy?) cryonicists could and probably would kill many cryonicists.

PIZER  On the other hand to continue to offer Neuro and eventually cause the public to hate us so much they put us out of business will kill ALL the cryoncists instead of just "many"!

So how can we solve the problem?

Let's say there are 200 members signed up for Neuro.  Many Neuro memberships are over funded to even more than the cost of a whole body, so let's not worry about them in this discussion of granfathering in existing Neuro Members for whole body suspensions.

So let's say there are 100 Neuro memberships in question.  Alcor could grandfather them in and upgrade those existing 100 members in question to a whole body suspension.  Since it really does not save $40,000 between a whole body and Neuro storage the cost to Alcor might be $20,000 each. 

The money Alcor would save on attorney fees and other costs and the removal of bad publicity, and removal of bad feelings about Alcor by the public would cause Alcor and cryonics to once again be respected and life would once again be rosy.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32463

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

Message #32464
References: <[email protected]>
From: Michael Smith <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:28:32 -0800
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460

--0016363b7bb6400c3904814f1351

My understanding of cryobiology is fairly poor, so forgive me if this has
already been considered and rejected for some reason.

If the PR problem with neuropreservations centers around decapitation but
the reason we do neuros at all is out of a confidence that what's important
to preserve is brain structure, why not make neuropreservations purely
preservations of the brain rather than the whole head?

It's pretty standard in autopsies to open up the skull and remove the brain.
 I don't know how much damage to the brain comes from that procedure, but I
imagine that a reasonably well-trained cryonics team might be able to work
around that problem.

Then the whole decapitation PR problem vanishes and neuropreservations take
up even less storage room than before.

Is that a workable solution?

 ~Michael Smith

--0016363b7bb6400c3904814f1351

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32464

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

Message #32465
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:46 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <[email protected]>

Mathew Sullivan has some good points about the Neuro option that I would like to respond to:


MATHEW SAID:  Also, Dave neglects to consider that
vitrification solutions used today are VERY expensive, and neuro patients
only require a small fraction of what is required for whole body patients.

DAVID:  What those of us, who want an objective discussion about the costs and risks to Alcor of offering the Neuro option want to know is what is the actual difference in cost of doing a Neuro vs a whole body and what are the future risks from the public dislike of the thought of Neuros.  Alcor offers a big discount to Neuro Members.  But the savings may not be nearly as much as the discount given them AND the other costs to Alcor in attorney fees and roadblocks that government, medical, and scientific people throw up in front of Alcor as we try to do do business from day to day -  plus the growing detesting of cryonics in general mainly because of the Neuro option may be much more than any savings.  Then there is the risk that continuing to anger the public by offering the Neuro to be do
 ne on their loved ones may cause them to force us out of business.  We just don't know the answers to all these questions without more study.


MATHER SAID: And the consequence of forcing members to take out a larger life insurance policy would only serve to increase the bounty on the heads of members (no pun intended) for family members who would be tempted to cash in by interfering.  So, I believe forcing neuro members to become whole body members would result in an implosion of the total number of Alcor members,and many of them would simply go sign up with CI.

DAVID:  This needs to be studied and compared to the risk of Alcor being regulated or forced out of business because of the public detesting of the Neuro option.

MATHEW: Some people out there may be turned off by neuro preservation; similar to Dave, I've talked to many people over the years and it isn't neuro preservation that is the key issue here, but our inability to bring back a whole organism such as a monkey or dog, etc.  And for those who continue to find neuro preservation a bit creepy, it is a matter of educating them about the scientific efforts with organ printing; naturally, we can't expect to please everyone while engaged in such discussions, but that's life.  Natural selection and technological progress will resolve this issue in time.

DAVID:  Dave is NOT turned off by the Neuro Option.  Dave is turned off by the thought of the public forcing Alcor out of business because *they* are turned off by the Neuro Option.  

Also, Mathew is just wrong if he thinks the Neuro option is not the key issue here.  People wont' tell a cryoncists (like Mathew) to his face they detest it, but they will write it on a follow-up card if they can be anonymous.

MATHEW:  In conclusion, unless Dave is willing to personally finance a free upgrade for individual members, I don't expect to see a shift in members who will be signing up for whole body preservation any time soon.

DAVID:  A better question is - Is Mathew ready and able to personally finance and guarantee the existence of Alcor if the public moves to close us down?  Mathew does say that Neuro Members like himself might just join CI  (as he suggests above) if they don't like what Alcor does. But long-term supporters of Alcor like myself don't want to join some other company - we want to make Alcor better and remain with Alcor!

MATHEW  And from the perspective of someone who is signed up for neuro, I wouldn't make the switch even if it was free.

DAVID:  It is this expressed attitude of a few Neuro-Huggers that give the public the impression that Alcor is a cult.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32465

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

Message #32466
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:38:58 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32460 - Rudi's Statements about Variable Annuiti...
References: <[email protected]>

--------------050707050601050800030802


>
> Message #32460
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 23:44:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: Cash funding for cryonics
> From: Rudi Hoffman <[email protected]>
>
> --0016363ba1aef6b7e8048142b9da
>
>
>   
[snip of non-related portions]
> Sorry, Kitty, but variable annuities, including the ones availble through
> Vanguard, (and I make them all available and have sold as well as invested
> in millions of dollars in Variable Annuities over the last 32 years) are not
> considered guaranteed and not suitable for cryonics funding..

If the variable annuities that I and Paul have were "not considered 
guaranteed and not suitable for cryonics funding", Alcor would *not* 
have accepted them for funding our contracts. We conducted fair search 
and examination of various investment vehicles, including variable 
annuities available from other companies, before finding this unique and 
fully applicable Vanguard kind. Perhaps, Rudi, you not aware of their 
unique differences from most others that are available. From the 
information available at their website it certainly appears to me that 
they cannot be and are never sold by intermediary agents. So all that 
you, Rudi, could gain from dealing with them is acting as an advisor and 
interpreting the Vanguard descriptive language. This would certainly be 
a worthwhile role to play (although Paul could also do this easily for 
any interested people), but there is certainly no "selling" of Vanguard 
annuities possible by outside agents (there are no sales commissions) as 
is made clear from their website. "You don't pay sales charges, so more 
of your money goes to work for you." With respect to surrender charges: 
"You gain flexibility and can save money because there aren't any 
surrender charges." 
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/annuities/variable 
Vanguard does offer Certified Financial Planner services; are you, Rudi, 
one of these? https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/advice

>   Because of
> the longstanding relationship you and Paul had with Alcor, the board may
> have made an exception in your case, but the general case still applies for
> general   funding situations.
>   

It's flattering that you think I and Paul have some special 
"longstanding relationship ... with Alcor", but that is not at all true. 
Either you have never known the relationship Paul had with Alcor - I had 
none until my application in March 2005, having chosen CryoCare in 1996 
- or you have totally forgotten. Paul canceled his contract with Alcor 
in 1992 after his call for the establishment of a search committee to 
find a replacement for then Board President Carlos Mondragon (who had 
done a fine job leading Alcor through the tumultuous situations brought 
on by the cryopreservation of Dora Kent) and Paul's assuming the 
Presidency of CryoVita (in which he had made a major investment and come 
to LA to be involved with). These actions and others by Mike Darwin (who 
canceled his contract at the same time as Paul) and Saul Kent resulted 
in a number of Alcor members creating CryoCare in September 1993 (not 
sure of these exact dates). From the time of CryoCare's demise in 1998 
until our contract approval by Alcor in December 2005, both of us were 
without cryopreservation contract coverage, mainly because there existed 
no cryopreservation provider that met our standards of operation. In 
fact during this time we had been critical of Alcor both in writing and 
vocally. From all our reading there are still many deficiencies in 
Alcor's operations. The only reason we joined Alcor when we did was 
because we consider them overall the better of the two and they were 
about to increase their neuro price so much that we would then have a 
hard time getting that much cash together quickly.

During the nine months after our application submission, time was spent 
in email correspondence between Paul and certain parties at Alcor, 
sometimes with a specific Vanguard representative knowledgeable about 
our annuities, answering their questions and completing all items that 
ensured the necessary online visibility of all our account details at 
anytime. This also included, we were informed, correspondence and phone 
calls between Alcor representative(s) and parties at Vanguard.

Yes, we were not going the typical insurance route, but at *no* time and 
in any way were we given any special treatment nor was there "an 
exception in [our] case". We are confident that others will have an 
easier time getting approval by Alcor (and maybe even CI) for using a 
variable annuity as funding now that we have done the ground work with 
our variable annuities through Vanguard.

Again, for those interested in Vanguard's variable annuities as a method 
of funding a cryopreservation contract as we have, Vanguard can be 
contacted directly by phone or email (Paul did the latter since we 
always want a record of discussions). And if anyone contemplating 
funding hir cryopreservation through the use of Vanguard variable 
annuities wants any additional help interpreting Vanguard's descriptive 
language and its real import, then Paul, who is the one who exhaustively 
did this for our purchase, would be happy to assist. 
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/annuities/variable 

> My purpose was and is to provide helpful and generally suitable and
> appropriate information regarding not slopping up our cryonics
> funding.  Kitty, your personal funding is probably just right for you, and I
> wouldn't want you to change a thing assuming Alcor approved your funding.
>   

You need not "assume" that Alcor approved our funding, since we are both 
in the Alcor Membership Directory with full names. We were notified by 
email on 12/5/2005 by Jennifer Chapman that:

[You] were approved as members this past week.  With your
finalization packages, Diane will send you copies of the completed LPOA form
& the additional agreement.  

Thank you for all of your efforts and patience.  It is my pleasure to
welcome you as Alcor members.


The above was in response to Paul's email of 12/4/2005 to Jennifer, in part:

It has been over a month now since I and Kitty were there to sign the 
Limited Power of Attorney forms giving Alcor more enhanced access to our 
Vanguard Annuity Account information so that Alcor could more easily 
verify that our funding was in order when and if necessary.


If the above does not satisfy you that Vanguard variable annuities *are* 
funding our cryopreservation contracts with Alcor, I hope that you will 
contact Alcor yourself and not remain in a state of simply "assuming" 
that this is so.
 
> So, thanks for the usual cryonet nitpicking, and I stand by the my posting.
> :)
>   

I do not "nit pick" - I only spend my time making essential points. If 
you, Rudi, think something I've written is simply a "a minor 
shortcoming" - "nit." /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 
Unabridged/ . Merriam-Webster, 2002. 
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (8 Mar. 2010) - I say that you are 
unaware of or are ignoring an essential.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting


--------------050707050601050800030802

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32466

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

Message #32467
From: John Clark <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:07:15 -0500
References: <[email protected]>

--Apple-Mail-8--106256532

On Mar 8, at 5:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> If those who want Alcor to no longer offer neuro get their way, hundreds of cryonicists will be forced to become EX cryos. That is a distinct possibility.

It's includable 


--Apple-Mail-8--106256532

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32467

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

Message #32468
From: John Clark <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32457 - #32460
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:29:27 -0500
References: <[email protected]>

--Apple-Mail-9--104924631

On Mar 8, 2010, <[email protected]> Wrote:

> If those who want Alcor to no longer offer neuro get their way, hundreds of cryonicists will be forced to become EX cryos. That is a distinct possibility.

Why is this matter even worthy of serious debate? What are we supposed to believe, that someday nanotechnology will be able to repair a frozen human brain, the most complex object in the known universe but will be stumped at providing a replacement for the big toe so the original must be maintained? And yes Cryonics has its gruesome aspects, but is anyone suggesting that the traditional ways of dealing with a dead body, burning it up or letting it rot, do not? This is a matter of life or death and if critical thinking is ever required it is needed on this question. Pandering to the ignorant for public relation purposes is all very well but getting rid of the nero option would be brain dead dumb.

 John K Clark




--Apple-Mail-9--104924631

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32468

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

Message #32469
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:47:09 -0700
From: Mike Perry <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer]
References: <[email protected]>

Here are my responses to my good friend David Pizer.
 >
DAVID PIZER: > The reason this debate is important is that it 
illustrates the downplaying of the disastrous public relations policy 
of cryonics companies in (as the public sees it) cutting off people's heads.
 >
 > My good friend Mike (Dr,) Perry has responded to my Cryonet post 
in another forum.  I am replying to him in that forum and on Cryonet 
where I originated the discussion.  Below are Mike's comments and my responses.
 >
 > UNKNOWN WROTE:   Please see the two messages that David Pizer 
wrote in the attached CryoNet digest. I think he has a good idea here 
regarding cryonics.  (ORIGINAL MESSAGES FROM PIZER DELETED)
MIKE PERRY: This was David Croft
 >
  MIKE PERRY: > With due respect for others' opinions I am opposed to 
eliminating the neuro option. I think that the long-term storage cost 
advantage of neuro over whole body is substantial (10 neuros will fit 
in the same size storage container as one whole body) and the 
negative publicity is overrated.
 >
 > PIZER'S RESPONSE:  Mike gives no actual figures of the difference 
in cost.  He just says 10 heads will fit in the same container as a 
whole body.  This is a way of misleading the reader into thinking 
that doing a "Neuro" suspension only costs 1/10 that of a whole 
body.  Nothing could be further than the truth.

MIKE PERRY: I don't actually say that, however, and immediately after 
this I do acknowledge that there are other costs to consider.  Alcor 
currently charges $80,000 for Neuro and $150,000 for whole body 
preservation (plus a surcharge for overseas cases). The $70,000 
difference between the two has to be considered significant. The 
disparity would be greater still if any of us who signed up for neuro 
years ago at lower rates were forced to switch to whole body. For 
instance I signed up for neuro in 1984 at the then-going rate of 
$35,000. I would have to come up with another $115,000 to convert to 
whole body at current rates. (As it happens, I have $85,000 
insurance, so I am overfunded for neuro, but not by much.)

DAVID PIZER: Most of the cost of doing a suspension (as I pointed out 
in my original posing and Mike conveniently overlooked) is in keeping 
the organization going to be there at suspension time, and in doing 
the standby and other costs.  The storage is not that big of the 
overall cost of either a Neuro or Whole Body suspension.

MIKE PERRY: Still though, there is a substantial difference in the 
cost of neuro versus whole body. Moreover, some of us even if we 
could afford whole body would prefer to put the funds into saving the 
most important part, the head, rather than distributing over a larger 
field. (That's the way I feel.)
 >
 >DAVID PIZER: AND, the attorney fees and roadblocks thrown up in 
Alcor's face, because the public detests Neuros, adds much more than 
the savings of a Neuro suspension to the over all costs of doing 
cryonics and Alcor staying in business  (just look at Alcor's annual 
costs of hiring consultants and attorneys, and other related expenses 
each year).

MIKE PERRY: As far as I can see, the attorney fees etc. are mainly 
concerned with other issues than the neuros Alcor does. Relatives 
claiming funds that were to be used for cryopreservation are one 
major case in point. Indirectly, undoubtedly there is some effect 
from neuros, e.g., litigation over certain claims made about Alcor's 
operations. That issue I think is pretty much one-of-a-kind, and will 
not persist longterm (see my comments below).
 >
 > DAVID PIZER: ALSO, doing Neuros causes the relatives of Alcor 
members to cause the members to cancel their membership.

MIKE PERRY: I don't see any figures on this. (And I didn't see any on 
the added cost of attorney's fees, etc. that is caused by the fact 
that Alcor does neuros.)

DAVID PIZER: This leads to lost patients - those members who quit us 
every year in droves would have become patients some day.  We lost 
and they lost - thanks to public perception of Neuro Option!

MIKE PERRY: I have yet to hear of anyone who dropped their membership 
in Alcor because Alcor does neuros. If they didn't want or select the 
neuro option themselves, it won't be applied against their will when 
they are cryopreserved. So why would someone drop their membership 
because others than themselves are being preserved by neuro?
 > DAVID PIZER:
 > Mike says: "... the negative publicity is overrated."
 >
 > Pizer: I have talked to thousands of individuals and groups on 
cryonics over the years and Mike is just plain *DEAD* wrong.   People 
won't always tell a cryonicists, to his face, that they detest 
Neuros, so a while ago when we were speaking to groups we let the 
audience fill out cards after the talk (without revealing their 
identity) about what they thought of our talk and cryonics in general 
and they detest Neuros.  It is the single one thing that turns them 
against cryonics and against Alcor!

MIKE PERRY: I don't think there is a substantial anti-neuro backlash 
and if there was I would have heard about it from our Membership 
Administrator. Why would someone "detest" neuros? It doesn't make 
much logical sense, since the brain is the important part to 
preserve, and we acknowledge that substantial repairs will be 
necessary so that that one part can function normally again. When 
people asked me about the missing body, I brought up Dolly the Sheep 
which was created from one cell (all organs etc.) and by appearances 
they accept the idea that recreating the body does not seem so farfetched.
 >
 > MIKE SAID:   (Storage costs are not the entire cost of long-term 
patient maintenance, but still quite a significant part.) TW strictly 
speaking was not a neuro. His whole body was preserved but in two 
parts. At the time of his cryopreservation Alcor had a vitrification 
protocol that required cephalic isolation (removing the head) to 
access the vasculature so the brain could be vitrified. It was either 
do that or accept a by-then substandard cryopreservation, the old 
kind with glycerol perfusion, not vitrification, if the whole body 
was perfused intact. Since this time Alcor has developed a protocol 
in which the whole body can be vitrified so that cephalic isolation 
is no longer required.
 >
 > PIZER:  Come on Mike!  EVERYONE Knew that TW's head was removed.
 >
 >  That is what turned most of the public against Alcor in this case 
- not the fact that we suspended him!
 >
MIKE: There were questions raised based on the decapitation. I get 
the impression they were well handled by Alcor and there has not been 
any strong backlash from the public at large. (Here I am refraining 
from comment about a certain matter relating to this because it is in 
litigation. But I don't think this one issue changes the conclusion. 
I think it is basically a one-time phenomenon that we are safely 
putting behind us.)

 > MIKE: the negative publicity is overrated., no neuropreservation 
has ever terminated. No lawsuit has ever been instigated *because* 
someone was preserved as a neuro rather than whole body.
 >
 > PIZER:  Hundred of Alcor memberships have been canceled over the years.

MIKE: Again, do you have actual figures? I don't know of a membership 
canceled because Alcor does neuros for those who choose this option.

PIZER: I believe it is because (in some/many cases) the relatives of 
the member hate Alcor so much - mainly because the are sicken by the 
Neuro option that we offer.  (In other cases, I believe, it is 
because the relatives know if the member cancels "they" can get the 
proceeds of the funding vehicle.)

MIKE: My feeling is that the latter far outnumber the former. If it 
were otherwise I would be hearing about it.
 >
 > MIKE:  The failure to consider the neuro option in the early days 
was, in my estimation, a major factor in the loss of patients that 
occurred. Time after time a whole body case would be abandoned rather 
than converted into lower-cost neuro. As for the negative publicity 
today, yes, neuro seems creepy to some people but can also make 
people think about what is really important about 
cryonics--preserving g the brain above all else. If we want to be 
rational we should allow this option. It can also be emphasized that 
nobody *requires* that someone sign up for neuro, you can go whole 
body if you choose (and can afford it).
 >
 > PIZER:  The "major" factor was the cryonics company in question 
ran out of money, good judgment and support from the relatives of the patients.

MIKE: If neuroconversion had been used a lot of these cases could 
have been saved, as a few actually were.
 >
 > Plus they were not set up like Alcor, They took suspensions on 
credit where Alcor solved that problem by requiring full payment up front.
 >
Yes, I agree.
Some final comments: I am in a position to hear of reasons why people 
either drop membership or won't sign up in the first place at Alcor. 
I have so far never heard "because you do neuros" as a reason given. 
I won't say it doesn't happen. But logically it seems reasonable that 
people who don't want neuro for themselves would be satisfied as long 
as *they* could sign up for whole body, whatever choice someone else 
might make. And I think *most people* feel that way.

Another point to make is that I think it is sad that the cost of 
cryonics is as high as it is, whatever the option chosen. Neuro *is* 
a lower-cost option than whole body, significantly so, when all 
factors are taken into account. It is probably not the lowest 
reasonable option, however, and I would like to see even lower-cost 
options offered. (Here I am not specifying the organization. Just 
somebody!) One possibility (suggested recently by Aschwin De Wolf) is 
to combine some form of rapid postmortem fixation with storage at 
-80C, about dry ice temperature. There are freezers that could 
accomplish this. If the patient ever warmed up to room temperature, 
it would not be the end of the world, in view of the fixation, though 
reestablishing the low temperature would be an urgent priority. A 
neuro done this way might be cheaper than storage in LN2, with more 
protection against the effects of warming. At least this idea should 
be researched.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32469

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

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