Paul Wakfer said that CA is only state where cryonics has officially agreed cryonics legal

Paul Wakfer said that CA is only state where cryonics has officially agreed cryonics legal


January 12th, 2004, 9:19 pm #1

Before the recent Michigan / CI resolution, Paul Wakfer told me that CA is the only state that has ever officially recognized that cryonics is legal. It now appears that MI should be added to the list of states where it's official that cryonics is legal. I don't quite understand why Paul doesn't think Arizona can be included in that growing list, however. Maybe I'll ask him soon.

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

January 15th, 2004, 4:22 am #2

He is one of the group who adamantly claimed there was a "check box" and then he tactfully slid out of the issue. Probably not an authority worth paying as much attention to as I had originally thought.



January 15th, 2004, 4:32 am #3

I don't Paul ever claimed there was a check box for cryonics. He actually had a pretty fair evaluation of the situation, reflecting the look of the CA CoD accurately. The contentious point is how one determines whether a state has embraced cryonics legally. What sets CA apart in Paul's mind is a question worth asking him I think. Are you sure Paul was in the check box group? I don't think he is.

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

January 17th, 2004, 6:33 am #4

From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
X-Yahoo-Profile: paulwakfer
X-eGroups-Approved-By: amwdewolf <> via web; 07 Jan 2004 03:46:28 -0000
Mailing-List: list; contact
Delivered-To: mailing list
List-Unsubscribe: <[][/url];
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:15:10 -0700
Subject: Re: cryonics

Kraig Mottar wrote:

> --- In, Rene van Wissen
> <rgtvanwissen@p...> wrote:
> > >Still doesn't change my mistrust of Alcor. It started in Riverside,
> > >California with the allegations against Saul Kent who at that point
> > >lived blocks away from where I lived. Something about what he did with
> > >the body of his mother. Even if nothing unethical occurred, the
> > >mishandling of the event leaves me with problems on how they are
> > >incapable of dealing with such events not to mention the security of
> > >their operation. Thus, I will not be going with Alsor.
> >
> > But you say there were allegations. How do you know if the allegations
> > were true? And what exactly do you mean by the "mishandling of the
> > event"?
> I think the allegations were true, at least, the Riverside coroner
> does. Beside, this is irrelevant.
> Obviously it was either mishandled or something illegal or unethical
> did occurr since,

While it is the purview of the state (government) to decide what is
illegal, it is not their purview to decide what is unethical. What Alcor
people did was fully ethical. Furthermore, it was even proven to be
legal by trial in the state of California which even today is the only
state which explicitly recognizes the existence and legality of cryonics
by placing a box for that disposition on the death certificate.

> as a result Alcor left the state, Arizona I think.

Your knowledge of Alcor is clearly so shallow that you have no business
making any judgments of them at all.

Alcor left California because the city of Riverside would not permit
them to do animal research and because of the long-term instability of
the earthquake situation. In my opinion that was a mistake on both
counts, since Mike Darwin and I found a place where 21st Century
Medicine could do animal research quite near to Riverside and my own
company CryoSpan invented a very safe method of securing patient dewars
from all effects including earthquakes. To this day no organization yet
uses such a sound method of patient protection as my reinforced concrete
dewar silos.

> > >So, you're a severe rationalist. I am not. You cannot prove nor
> > >disprove reincarnation. There are things that cannot be proven or
> > >disproven. You cannot disprove that. The universe is not and will
> > >probably never be, so absolute.
> >
> > OK, but if you "believe" in something that cannot be proven by logic or
> > facts, on what basis do you believe in it? I don't believe in
> > reincarnation because I don't see a reason to.
> People have beliefs.

But one should not have a belief without evidence and reasons for it.
Doing so it totally impractical and non-productive and likely is one of
the reasons why you have so mishandled your own life.

> Logic can't neccessarilly settle everything all
> the time. Besides you seem stucks on this proven thing to the point of
> ignoring that some things can be neither proven nor disproven.

The question is not whether humans can currently prove or disprove a
given and testable hypothesis, but on whether such proof is forever
impossible. Any non-contradictory formulated hypothesis about reality
is ultimately capable of proof or disproof.

--Paul Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational -
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:


January 17th, 2004, 12:37 pm #5

Wow, good find Moose. Thanks. Let me double check Paul's last email to me on this to see what level of contradiction there might seem to be.