CryoNet #33358 - #33362

CryoNet - Sun 27 Feb 2011

    #33358: What to Do and Some of How to Do It  [M2darwin]
    #33359: Euthanasia  / Euthanasie [Jens Rabis]
    #33360: Re: CryoNet #33354 - Quackery Prevails in Cryonics [Melody Maxim]
    #33361: Barriers to entry to cryonics, etc. [Kennita Watson]
    #33362: Barriers to the Myth of Quackery [Finance Department]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33358%2D33362

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 #33358
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:44:51 EST
Subject: What to Do and Some of How to Do It 

Content-Language: en

 
First,  thanks to Kennita , Mark and Gerald for their posts. Mark asked me 
essentially  the same question on Chronosphere a few days ago, namely "If 
someone invented  cryonics now as a new idea, how would he or she present it 
based on current  science, technology and thinking about "the future," 
instead of employing  paleofuturism from the 1960's through the 1980's, including 
Drexler's  "nanotechnology" mirage and talk about the "space age"?  
It's  a good question, and it's central to what I, and a few others, am 
trying to do  to "reboot" cryonics. So, I invite you to participate in that 
discussion, and  these efforts. I feel fairly confident solid action will 
flow from them. Some of  that discussion is appropriate in "public" forums, 
such as Cryonet, but much of  it isn't. One sure and certain answer to Mark's 
question about "what would s/he  do differently, if starting cryonics today 
would be to have the minimum possible  to do with the media, and where we 
do interact with them, it be in a highly  controlled manner. There are many 
reasons for this, but I'll only deal with a  couple here - principally 
because they came up in private correspondence a  few  days ago, and they 
highlight a  couple serious problems with media interaction. 
While  the Dora Kent and DHS crises were winding down, Thomas Donaldson was 
diagnosed  with a Grade III astrocytoma - an almost invariably lethal 
diagnosis. I honestly  do not know whose idea it was to litigate Thomas' right to 
enter  cryopreservation before medico-legal death was pronounced, but the 
Donaldson  (TKD) case would turn out to be a significant factor in the 
degradation of  Alcor's focus, and health as a cryonics organization. TKD was a 
very good man -  quirky, eccentric, and often obstinate - but a good man, and 
a decent man. Some  of his ideas are truly beautiful, and he has had a 
lasting impact on cryonics.  Unfortunately, (at least from my point of view) the 
lawsuit against the Attorney  General (AG) was ill timed, foolish, costly 
AND a sign of hubris. To be frank,  it was ridiculous to think we could have 
prevailed, and it was a symptom of  over-confidence after the Dora Kent legal 
victories. 
I  was opposed to the TKD legal action from the start, and I fought it 
tooth and  nail, *until the decision was taken to pursue it.* After that, I did 
what I was  obligated to do; and that was to support it, and to work for it 
without  reservation. The legal action against the AG wasn't immoral, it was 
just ill  considered - so I could work for it without any conflicts or 
hesitations - and  it *was* clearly the desire of the vast majority of Alcor 
members and  management. I know this to be so, because I 'forced' it to a vote 
at public  meeting held in Dick Jones' former home in Toluca Lake, shortly 
before its sale.  Aside from proving financially damaging, and contributing 
to the destruction of  a critical (IMO) safety financial measure called the "
10% Rule," it caused a  deep and permanent schism between TKD and his wife 
Cath , and me, and it  significantly further eroded trust between Jerry Leaf 
and I. During the case  there were several damaging leaks of information 
that could only have come from  our lawyers' office, or from inside Alcor. 
Jerry rightly, in my opinion,  concluded that they came from inside Alcor; and 
he then wrongly concluded they  were from me. They were not.  
The  cost was astronomical: ~$250,000; and many of the members who 
supposedly so  badly wanted the litigation against the AG, turned out to be quite 
unwilling, or  unable, to pay for it. As a consequence, the money came out of 
the Dick Jones  bequest. And that helped to establish a pattern of behavior 
that caused Alcor to  become disconnected from careful husbandry of its 
resources, and *from  feedback.* Because the TKD litigation garnered immense 
media attention, it was  seen by many in Alcor as having been a GOOD THING. No 
one asked how many new  members were recruited, or how many good people 
flowed into the organization as  a result. All they saw were the lights, the 
cameras, the reporters and  themselves on TV and in the newspapers. A number of 
people in Alcor management  came to believe that this kind of superficial 
attention could actually sell  cryonics to the public on a large scale. And 
in truth, a few new members were  recruited. But at what cost in money, and 
more importantly, at what cost in time  and focus on the core job of a 
cryonics organization: doing patient care well  and working to improve its quality 
and the security of patient  storage? 
One  of the many things Jerry Leaf and I had in common was a general 
loathing of the  "mass media." In one of the more eloquent and emotional things 
Jerry wrote,  "Science Monkeys and the Media," he laid out his contempt for 
that kind of  journalism. I should point out that by today's standards, with 
the demise of the  much of the culture of responsibility and source/fact 
checking in the print  media, the media were of the 1980s were paragons of 
responsibility compared to  what passes for journalism today. If you look at 
the growth numbers for Alcor  during the period of low to no media activity, 
you will see that that was when  the growth rate was the highest - and what'
s more, it was when Alcor was  attracting the kind of people that both it as 
an organization, and cryonics in  general really needed; bright, 
enthusiastic and deeply committed young people.  Impressively, of that group of bright 
young activists I know of only one who is  not still signed up and active 
to some degree in cryonics, and that is Mike  Price, in the UK.  
The  strategy then was to communicate with that segment of the world that 
was capable  of hearing our message, and to do in a way that made it clear 
that we were  serious, competent and had a very material chance of affecting 
real change and  actually making cryonics work. With all due respect, you can'
t do this with a  "book" or any other single change or "tweak" to our 
public interface. It has to  be done by actions that speak to every aspect of 
the operation. And there has to  be a credible and well run "nucleating site"
 an organization that serves as an  example and as a mentoring institution 
to create and sustain the culture of  competence, dedication and 
responsibility that is required to make cryonics  viable. And so I tell you a mystery, 
if there was never another media article  about cryonics (not that that will 
happen) we would be vastly better off, and  progress and growth would be 
vastly more rapid.  
Why?  Because as it stands now, we are spending really damaging amounts of 
time and  effort trying to send out our message to the world through wooden 
dummies - like  an incompetent and spastic ventriloquist. When each cynical, 
mocking or just  plain garbled -up article, electronic media news story, 
book or blog post  appears, everyone feels this warm glow and sense of 
accomplishment that, "we got  our message out." Well, there is an old saying in 
the public relations business  that goes, "The only thing worse than no 
reputation, is a bad one." It is at  once sad and amusing to see some well 
intentioned cryonicists worried about our  being seen as a cult. Well, newsflash, 
we ARE seen as a cult right now, and far  worse. The overall public attitude 
towards cryonics is poor and deteriorating  (I'll have more to say on this 
on Chronosphere where this post will be expanded  upon).  
Our  numbers and resources are so small that they cannot have success 
without single  minded focus on what's important, free from circus act 
distractions. And what's  important is to establish high quality technical care for 
ourselves, stop the  truly unbelievable premature dying going on as a result 
of largely preventable  illnesses, rapidly advance research to improve the 
quality of cryopreservation,  and thus shorten our "tank time," develop 
robust and hardened facilities for  long term care that are realistic, 
affordable, and that provide a  high level of physical and other  protection for our 
patients in times that are almost guaranteed to be  increasingly unstable, 
turbulent and dangerous, and finally, to establish  teaching and mentoring 
facilities that will produce people of technical, ethical  and moral 
excellence. Do that, and we'll have more people beating a path to our  door, and 
remaining as lifelong contributing members and supporters, than we  could "recruit
" with decades of media attention managed by the most skillful PR  firm on 
the planet. 
Finally,  there are the pit vipers like Melody Maxim. This disturbed and 
pathetic woman  has her own private e-space where she can and does post her 
hateful rants and  pursue her continued use of fraud and force against 
cryonics. Her false  accusations, thoroughly rebutted, are never acknowledged by 
her as having been  in error. Her bizarre and ludicrous claims that cryonics 
has not interacted with  perfusion science and "Board Certified" 
perfusionists, have been shown to be  patently false, and her lack of understanding of 
fundamental principles in  physiology and in finding the real technical 
errors in cryopatient care, glaring  highlight her own substantial intellectual 
shortcomings. No one, absolutely no  one in cryonics, has ever used the word 
"surgeon" to imply that they were  physicians, licensed or otherwise, and 
in fact all have gone out of their way to  be clear about their 
qualifications, or lack thereof. And of course, the  regulatory apparatus cannot have it 
both ways: they say our patients are  CORPSES, and it is therefore not 
possible to be practicing medicine on them.   
For  myself, I'm happy to rechristen the position of the person who 
incises,  cannulates or otherwise dissects the tissues of cryonics patients if 
there is  any serious misapprehension that the use of the word "surgeon" in 
cryonics  procedures is causing members and patients to believe that Board 
Certified MDs  are carrying out these procedures. Of course, sometimes it is the 
case that such  certified and licensed professions are doing the job. But 
no matter, I don't  believe this is a serious issue, and if it is, well this 
is one place to ask.  So, I'll do that forthwith: "Are there any 
cryonicists out there who believe  that the personnel carrying out cannulation, 
craniotomies and other "surgical"  procedures are Board Certified Surgeons?" and "
Do any of you who have signed up  for cryonics feel you were mislead in 
this regard?"  
Maxim  is a spiteful, hate filled creature with no respect for the truth. 
She has  established her own secret forum from which to dispense her venom. 
She is not  welcome here, and I urge that powers that be in Cryonet to show 
her the door  forthwith, with no concern whatsoever that it slams her in the 
fanny on her way  out. 
THAT  is as good a place as any to start in regaining our self respect, and 
to act to  properly defend cryonics. Stop listening to such drivel and 
start focusing on  setting our house in order with the help of those who 
sincerely want to be of  assistance. 
Mike  Darwin


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33358

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

Message #33359
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
Subject: Euthanasia  / Euthanasie
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:09:43 +0100

Hi Cryonauts,

voluntary euthanasia ... is not (!) euthanasia (in the German-fascist
sense)!
In Germany, assisted suicide is unpunished / will not be punished. The
current debate in Germany: Can / Do the doctors even run? We often doctors
did it secretly, at the request of the patient?

**********

freiwillige Euthanasie ... ist keine(!) Euthanasie (im
deutsch-faschistischen Sinne)!
In Deutschland ist Beihilfe zum Suizid straffrei. Die aktuelle Diskussion in
Deutschland: Durfen/wollen das auch Arzte ausfuhren? Wir oft taten Sie es
heimlich, auf Bitte des Patienten?


Best greetings
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin
"The time is with us, we can ... more! Life is for my ... curiosity :-)
Cryonics is not ... immortality! Voluntary euthanasia ... is not (!)
euthanasia (in the German-fascist sense)!"

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33359

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

Message #33360
From: "Melody Maxim" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33354 - Quackery Prevails in Cryonics
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:46:09 -0500

Gerald Monroe writes: "A patient was on a ventilator and asked it to be 
turned off.  He was
declared dead within a few minutes and the CI team was able to rush in to
preserve him.  Mike Darwin thought the results in this case were much better
than normal because there weren't blood clots visible in the capillaries of
his brain that block perfusion of the cryo-protectant."

Did Mike Darwin slice up that brain and examine it under a microscope? 
Capillaries are too small to be seen with the naked eye. They are so small, 
in fact, that red blood cells (approximately 7 microns in diameter) can only 
travel through them in single file. Why does Gerald Monroe believe Mike 
Darwin would be able to observe clots in the capillaries of people who have 
been cryopreserved? Why does Gerald Monroe believe anything Mike Darwin says 
is true? I assume Mr. Darwin, and others, have deceived many with their 
rambling reports that are generously laced with medical and scientific 
terminology. (Then again, hundreds, or even a few thousand, people fooled 
over the course of 40 years isn't really all that many, is it?)

Recently, remarks have been made, in regard to Mr. Darwin wanting to make 
cryonics some sort of "secret society." Why might that be? Does he want 
cryonics organizations to live up to their reputation as being cult-like? 
Most likely, it is because, only when shielded from the light of day, can 
Mr. Darwin pretend to be a surgeon, a perfusionist, or someone of scientific 
importance. The poor public perception of cryonics is largely due to the 
questionable research, and unprofessional activities, of people such as Mike 
Darwin.

Mr. Monroe recently lamented, in a comment directed at me, "If you think you 
are a better perfusionist than Mike, why don't you help him?" Mike Darwin is 
not a perfusionist, at all...never has been, probably never will be...and I 
can't provide the type of "help" I believe Mr. Darwin needs. Mr. Monroe has 
been conned, as have many others, and that is why cryonics must be 
regulated. Those of us who see the charade have, not only a "right," but an 
OBLIGATION, to speak out.

Melody Maxim 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33360

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

Message #33361
Subject: Barriers to entry to cryonics, etc.
From: Kennita Watson <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:10:59 -0800
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

If we are going to take off, we need to lower both the perceived and the actual barriers to entry.  Probably best not to mention the full cost of suspension ($200K), since 1) virtually no one actually pays it, and 2) it makes a lot of people swallow hard and flee.  Better to discuss the per-month cost that people actually pay, for insurance, membership, etc.  If the full-body cost still makes them gulp, add up the costs for neuro.

To increase visibility and get more people involved, we may want to have non-suspension memberships, whose cost would go to research and be tax-deductible.  We might also want to have store-genetic-material-only memberships, with and without data and/or physical object storage.  There could also be benefit donations, to cover costs for suspension of a profiled financially-strapped member.  Or a lottery ($100/ticket, winner gets a contract?).

What other ways are there to get people involved?  Getting a lot of people involved a little bit is arguably even better than a few people a lot, but any ideas are welcome.  A video contest?  AT&T paid a $20,000 first prize for a boring topic, and got probably millions of dollars worth of publicity from this excellent video (which is as good an argument for cryonics as for AT&T online services):

http://simplify.att.com/videos/dave-and-att

The Alcor Web site is competent, but I don't think I'm alone in finding it dull.  One addition I think would help is a page full of "Why I'm signed up for cryonics" entries.  We need to communicate our excitement about the possibilities for the future!  Maybe in a brighter color.  FWIW, maybe the entire Web site should be brighter; that shade of blue is sleep-inducing, and certainly not a call to action.  Who came up with it? What do other folks think?

It's been a while since I worked on http://gocryo.org .  Check it out; is it worth more of my time?


Live long and prosper,
Kennita

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33361

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

Message #33362
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:42:49 -0500
Subject: Barriers to the Myth of Quackery
From: Finance Department <[email protected]>

--0016e6d6456f9c9491049d3d0818

If scientists can do this already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI

then I think it should give us some reassurance as to what "our friends from
the future" might be able to reconstruct of our bodies resuscitated from
cryopreservation.  The jury's still out on the "heads resuscitated" idea.

Having said that, I respect the idea that cryopreservation should be carried
out by the methods deemed most worthy by the best scientific data
available.  Much of what we have seen in the past decade is inexcusable, and
becomes the focus of the detractors and anti-cryonicists in our midst.  We
can get rid of them easily by ceasing to be totally foolish.  We may think
we can ignore them and they will go away - unlikely, unless their rug is
pulled out from under them.

Marketing concepts will do little or nothing to enhance cryonics'
credibility.  Practical results that work, now there's a better idea.

Cheers,

FD

--0016e6d6456f9c9491049d3d0818

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33362

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

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