CryoNet #32757 - #32761

CryoNet - Wed 11 Aug 2010

    #32757: Stare at boobs for longer life [Shannon]
    #32758: Re: Effects of the Social Environment on Health [John de Rivaz]
    #32759: #32755: NIH grants for cryonics? [Rudi Hoffman] [Jens Rabis]
    #32760: Fwd: Stare at boobs for longer life [David Stodolsky]
    #32761: Re: NIH grants for cryonics? [David Stodolsky]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32757%2D32761

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.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #32757
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shannon <[email protected]>
Subject: Stare at boobs for longer life

--0-967315487-1281431377=:72886

I'm surprised that is still going around, I'm sure it makes you happier though 
and that is always good--although being fixated on breasts certainly does give 
babies a longer life ;-)  -- Shannon 

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp


    #32754: Stare at boobs for longer life [David Stodolsky]
 

Message #32754
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Stare at boobs for longer life
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:17:49 +0200

"Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly 
equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out."


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky
--0-967315487-1281431377=:72886

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32757

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

Message #32758
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Effects of the Social Environment on Health
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:15:35 +0100

As someone pointed out, this thread is getting off topic for cryonet, so I have commented on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LongevityReport/
about "greed for jobs" as against "need for jobs".

-- 
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=32758

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

Message #32759
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: #32755: NIH grants for cryonics? [Rudi Hoffman]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:53:13 +0200

Hello Mr. Hoffmann,

my idea would be for State grants (legal):
Children and young people who die young. With cryonic moving the medical
treatment in the future. Establishing a pilot institute. Ideally +
foundation for the future security. Maybe we can make an additional deal
with the insurance company. 
My previous question on one of the largest health insurer in Germany failed
... because of the problem: Who pays for the resuscitation and the cure? I
believe the payment of the storage is no problem for a health insurance.

My idea for old billionaires, (legal "gray area", but ok for the Bible /
Christians, perhaps also for other religions):
Young body donor, whose brain is frozen. The brain is currently incurable. 
The parents have consented the body donation and the brain cryonic.
Establishing private Christian institution. Get tax benefits and / ore State
grants. Ideally + foundation for the future security. 
In Germany, at the moment, politically impossible.

We benefit in each case of two ideas. It would force the resuscitation
research and the renewable energies.

****

Meine Idee ware fur staatliche Zuschusse (legal):
Kinder und junge Menschen, welche jung sterben. Verschieben der arztlichen
Behandlung in die Zukunft, mittels Kryonik. Grundung eines Pilot-Institutes.
Idealerweise + Stiftung fur die Zukunftssicherheit. Vielleicht kann man
einen zusatzlichen Deal mit der Krankenkasse machen. Meine fruhere Anfrage
an eine der groBten Krankenversicherer Deutschlands, scheiterte an dem
Problem: Wer bezahlt die Reanimation und die Heilung? Ich glaube die
Bezahlung der Lagerung ist kein Problem fur eine Krankenkasse.

Meine Idee fur alte Milliardare ("rechtliche Grauzone" aber fur die Bibel /
Christen o.k. vielleicht auch fur andere Religionen): 
Junge Korperspender, deren Gehirn wird eingefroren. Deren Gehirn ist derzeit
unheilbar krank.
Die Eltern haben der Korperspende und der Gehirnkryonik zugestimmt. Grundung
es privatem christlichen Institutes. Bekommt Steuervorteile und / oder
staatliche Zuschusse. Idealerweise + Stiftung fur die Zukunftssicherheit. 
In Deutschland derzeit politisch unmoglich.


Wir profitieren in jedem Fall von beiden Ideen, denn es wurde die
Reanimations-Forschungen und die Nutzung von erneuerbaren Energien
forcieren. 


Best greetings Jens Rabis
Germany - Berlin



#32755: NIH grants for cryonics? [Rudi Hoffman]
Message #32755
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:48:11 -0400
Subject: NIH grants for cryonics?
From: Rudi Hoffman <[email protected]>

--001636416b97efc4be048d694b29

I thank David Stodolsky for putting the info re: NIH grants on the site.

While it may sound "nuts" to some, I wonder if it would be possible to get
an NIH grant to study the relative health, outlook, and metrics of
cryonicists vs. the general population?

I frankly do not the expertise or background to write this grant, or
something like it.  But perhaps someone on this list or somewhere off this
list does have this skillset.

My sister is a college professor who has written and received grants for
social and educational programs over many years.  There are, I am told,
literally millions of dollars looking to fund legitimate science, and we all
have heard examples of government largess malinvestments.

When I was discussing cryonics and funding with her, she asked if anyone had
ever even tried for any type of government funding.

I replied that to my knowledge the answer is "no."  Most cryonicists are
ideologically loathe to deal with the necessary paperwork and not oriented
toward "government" solutions.

 And, ideology aside, it struck me then and now that government and NIH
grants are an unlikely funding source.  I further opined that mostly what
cryonicists think of when it comes to government is simply how to make sure
that cryonics is not regulated or legislated out of business.   Getting
money from Big Brother?  No way!   Mostly we are happy that we are still by
in large under government radar.

But, in this, as in many other things, I could be way wrong.  In this
instance, in fact, I would be happy to BE wrong.  We need a thousand labs
studying the problems and challenges of cryonics...not one.  We need
multiple sources of funding...not one heroic team doing all the heavy
lifting.  The reality is that most large scale research today REQUIRES
multiple parties and stakeholders working collaboratively (witness
supercollider funding, cancer research, name your Big Science project.)

The packaging and grant writing would ideally be in collaboration with a
university or some established and credentialed extant program.

I am going to copy some people who might have some ideas on this.  While it
is almost certainly too early in the game for a cryonics oriented grant to
be...well...granted, it is axiomatic that ideas and initiatives have to have
their start somewhere.

Any ideas on this?  While I sometimes find David Stodolsky's postings a bit
too academic for my tastes, I think this posting and idea is at least
potentially a good one.  Thank you, David!

And, I apologize in advance if this is a question so stupid that it should
not even be asked.  Those of us who feel we really DO the heavy lifting in
cryonics are justifiably suspicious of any suggestion in the format "Why in
the world don't you guys...(insert seemingly obvious simple solution to the
problems of cryonics here)?   Dilettantes of all stripes, and those merely
and merrily offering criticisms instead of wading in and making cryonics
work, are pretty annoying.   So, I don't want to be one.  Thanks for your
time.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rudi

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32759

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

Message #32760
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Stare at boobs for longer life
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:50:09 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

Here is the link:

<http://www.themedguru.com/20091206/newsfeature/stare-boobs-longer-life-study-86131320.html>

dss

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
> Date: 9 August 2010 1:17:49 PM GMT+02:00
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Stare at boobs for longer life
> 
> "Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out."
> 
> 
> dss
> 
> David Stodolsky
> [email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32760

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

Message #32761
Subject: Re: NIH grants for cryonics?
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:06:03 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 10 Aug 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> I wonder if it would be possible to get
> an NIH grant to study the relative health, outlook, and metrics of
> cryonicists vs. the general population?

The chances of this are vanishingly small. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has the objective of improving people's health thru research. Let's say we were able to show that cryonicists' health was improved compared to others. Then, given current funding arrangements, a miniscule number of people would be able to improve their health by signing up. So, impact would be assessed as nil.

Further, we would have to show that it is being a cryonicist, not less religious belief, better eating habits, etc. that was the cause of the improvement. So, there are substantial theoretical and practical difficulties in carrying out a study. The total absence of previous research makes hypothesis formulation uncertain. So, contribution to new knowledge would be in doubt.

Given that the mainstream view of cryonics is that it is a form of quackery, funding possibilities are further reduced. 

Finally, given that no support for this kind of research has ever come from the cryonics community and the research that has been done gratis has been totally ignored, the environment for doing this research is inadequate. The well documented and continuing waste of research money within cryonics certainly offers no support for the potential application of any results.

So, I could easily write a proposal along these lines, but it would be a total waste of time. 


There is no doubt that social environment has a substantial effect on the life span of cryonicists, as well as others. It is very likely that greater gains could be achieved for less money in this area than any other, since it has yet to be explored. However, without some support for this type of research within the community, that could show some interesting preliminary results, the chance of money from outside is small. In addition, with the type of support for marketing I have argued is essential to ensure the survival of suspendees, an argument could be made that this area will become important for a substantial population in the future. Given the current stagnation in growth, this argument is not available. 


dss


http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-11-003.html#SectionIV1

Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each.  An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.  For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance.  Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?  If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?  How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s).  Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?  If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training?  If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)?  If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation.  Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?  Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?  Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach.  Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?  Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?   If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?

If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment.  Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?  Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?  Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? 



David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32761

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

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