Melody

Melody

Joined: August 31st, 2007, 2:14 pm

June 25th, 2010, 2:06 am #1

I remain somewhat puzzled by some of Melody Maxim's postings.

Let me say first that, in denouncing some aspects of cryonics organizations' histories and practices, she has generally not specifically included Cryonics Institute as a culprit, although she has broadly indicted cryonics leadership and practices for the last 40 years, seemingly including CI's.

As one aspect of this, I remind readers that while CI suspensions have been performed by people lacking formal medical credentials, these people have had a great deal of relevant experience. At present they include Andy Zawacki, mortician Jim Walsh and his daughter (also a licensed mortician), and Ben Best with a long history of studies and involvement in cryonics and a pharmacist background. Previously they included cryobiologist Yuri Pichugin, with a history of animal studies such as freezing sheep heads and testing vitrification solutions on rat brains. Their pay has been very moderate.

I won't try to defend my own involvement. Of course I was the wrong person to lead the cryonics movement, but nobody better qualified came forward for many years, and nobody clearly well qualified and prestigious has tried to assume leadership in recent years either. I did the best I knew how, and nobody has accused me of anything unethical as far as I know. My approach has always had the focus on common sense, which I believe is shared by CI's current Directors.

Melody has been generous and helpful in looking at CI procedures and making suggestions. This is worth a lot, but it isn't a blank check.

One major fault I find with much of Melody's writing is her insistence that physicians, perfusionists, and other medical professionals would support cryonics if only the organizations would take a professional approach. She appears implicitly to deny that there is pervasive indifference or hostility to cryonics among medical professionals. It seems plain as day to me that, if medicos generally were open to cryonics, some of them would have long since raised the banner and contributed to the movement in some active way. Aftr all, their own butts are on the line too, and their families'. I don't think any amount of rationalization can excuse this. (Naturally there will occasionally be an exception, but as far as I can tell they have been few and far between.)

The other major fault is the impression she often leaves that she doesn't really care whether cryonics grows or implodes, and if the lattr it is somehow deserved. I do wish that, if her ultimate intention is to help cryonics, she would find a better way to do it.

Robert Ettinger
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2007, 2:45 pm

June 25th, 2010, 2:55 pm #2

I have also been, at times, concerned about some of the issues raised in your post, Mr. Ettinger. I look forward to seeing Melody's reply.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

June 25th, 2010, 3:25 pm #3

I remain somewhat puzzled by some of Melody Maxim's postings.

Let me say first that, in denouncing some aspects of cryonics organizations' histories and practices, she has generally not specifically included Cryonics Institute as a culprit, although she has broadly indicted cryonics leadership and practices for the last 40 years, seemingly including CI's.

As one aspect of this, I remind readers that while CI suspensions have been performed by people lacking formal medical credentials, these people have had a great deal of relevant experience. At present they include Andy Zawacki, mortician Jim Walsh and his daughter (also a licensed mortician), and Ben Best with a long history of studies and involvement in cryonics and a pharmacist background. Previously they included cryobiologist Yuri Pichugin, with a history of animal studies such as freezing sheep heads and testing vitrification solutions on rat brains. Their pay has been very moderate.

I won't try to defend my own involvement. Of course I was the wrong person to lead the cryonics movement, but nobody better qualified came forward for many years, and nobody clearly well qualified and prestigious has tried to assume leadership in recent years either. I did the best I knew how, and nobody has accused me of anything unethical as far as I know. My approach has always had the focus on common sense, which I believe is shared by CI's current Directors.

Melody has been generous and helpful in looking at CI procedures and making suggestions. This is worth a lot, but it isn't a blank check.

One major fault I find with much of Melody's writing is her insistence that physicians, perfusionists, and other medical professionals would support cryonics if only the organizations would take a professional approach. She appears implicitly to deny that there is pervasive indifference or hostility to cryonics among medical professionals. It seems plain as day to me that, if medicos generally were open to cryonics, some of them would have long since raised the banner and contributed to the movement in some active way. Aftr all, their own butts are on the line too, and their families'. I don't think any amount of rationalization can excuse this. (Naturally there will occasionally be an exception, but as far as I can tell they have been few and far between.)

The other major fault is the impression she often leaves that she doesn't really care whether cryonics grows or implodes, and if the lattr it is somehow deserved. I do wish that, if her ultimate intention is to help cryonics, she would find a better way to do it.

Robert Ettinger
First, I want to say I am happy to see Mr. Ettinger posting, and I hope he has fully recovered from his accident, which I read about in "Long Life." I admire Mr. Ettinger, very much, and it pains me, somewhat, to disagree with him...but the fact remains that I do.

I don't include CI as a "culprit," in my criticisms, because I think of CI as an "innocent bystander," of sorts. I don't see CI spending a bundle of money, each year, on questionable projects, which get described as "research," or "R&D," but are really foolishness which keeps putting a lot of money in the same pockets, year-after-year, while resulting in little-to-no progress. I don't know how to resolve the problem of including CI in my broad statements, regarding the lack of progress, and to be honest, I have some questions regarding their current leadership, which seems to have a tendency to support those I believe behave unethically. I agree that CI has people with a good degree of relevant experience, and they seem to have been responsible with their research and finances.

Contrary to Mr. Ettinger, I do believe many qualified medical professionals would be happy to work in cryonics, if it were not for a large degree of corruption, at organizations, (other than CI), which have the funding to support qualified persons. No one can expect members of the medical community to read about cryonics, on the Internet, and say, "HEY...now THAT's something I would want to be involved in!" given the history, or for people like me to suggest my professional friends seek out employment, in cryonics, given my own experience. I am a medical professional who worked in cryonics, and if the situation would have been different, I believe I would have been able to bring in fellow professionals, and SA had a payroll more than generous enough to support such people. Instead, I wasted five months of my life, fighting for even the smallest needed changes in equipment, which would have been obvious to anyone familiar with conventional hypothermic arrest procedures, (and probably to anyone with common sense, who was not being paid to build the existing equipment). The resistance to change was not reasonable, or rational, on any level, and I think Mr. E. might be able to imagine the subversive manipulations, which ensued, when someone making a lot of money didn't want SA's projects, or personnel, questioned. For so long as a small group of people, with control of a large amount of funding are in positions of influence, I believe the few medical professionals who do cross paths with cryonics will have the limited choices of being corrupted themselves, or being run off.

As for finding a better way to help cryonics, I've come to the conclusion that the best hope is probably regulation. I don't see any other way to get rid of the negative influence, which I believe prevents medical professionals who would want to contribute, and cannot be corrupted (into "rubber-stamping" projects they know are foolish and unproductive), from being welcomed into well-funded organizations. I firmly believe that, had I been willing to endorse projects I knew (based on my professional experience with related procedures and equipment) were insane wastes of time and money, I could still be sitting at a desk at SA, and getting paid quite handsomely for simply agreeing with "the powers that be," (even when I knew them to be wrong). Unfortunately, that's not my dream job...I'd rather actually accomplish something.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2009, 11:29 am

June 25th, 2010, 4:50 pm #4

I remain somewhat puzzled by some of Melody Maxim's postings.

Let me say first that, in denouncing some aspects of cryonics organizations' histories and practices, she has generally not specifically included Cryonics Institute as a culprit, although she has broadly indicted cryonics leadership and practices for the last 40 years, seemingly including CI's.

As one aspect of this, I remind readers that while CI suspensions have been performed by people lacking formal medical credentials, these people have had a great deal of relevant experience. At present they include Andy Zawacki, mortician Jim Walsh and his daughter (also a licensed mortician), and Ben Best with a long history of studies and involvement in cryonics and a pharmacist background. Previously they included cryobiologist Yuri Pichugin, with a history of animal studies such as freezing sheep heads and testing vitrification solutions on rat brains. Their pay has been very moderate.

I won't try to defend my own involvement. Of course I was the wrong person to lead the cryonics movement, but nobody better qualified came forward for many years, and nobody clearly well qualified and prestigious has tried to assume leadership in recent years either. I did the best I knew how, and nobody has accused me of anything unethical as far as I know. My approach has always had the focus on common sense, which I believe is shared by CI's current Directors.

Melody has been generous and helpful in looking at CI procedures and making suggestions. This is worth a lot, but it isn't a blank check.

One major fault I find with much of Melody's writing is her insistence that physicians, perfusionists, and other medical professionals would support cryonics if only the organizations would take a professional approach. She appears implicitly to deny that there is pervasive indifference or hostility to cryonics among medical professionals. It seems plain as day to me that, if medicos generally were open to cryonics, some of them would have long since raised the banner and contributed to the movement in some active way. Aftr all, their own butts are on the line too, and their families'. I don't think any amount of rationalization can excuse this. (Naturally there will occasionally be an exception, but as far as I can tell they have been few and far between.)

The other major fault is the impression she often leaves that she doesn't really care whether cryonics grows or implodes, and if the lattr it is somehow deserved. I do wish that, if her ultimate intention is to help cryonics, she would find a better way to do it.

Robert Ettinger
We'd have to invent her!

I believe that, entiely due to the efforts made by Ms Maxim over
the years, that Suspended Animation has probably stepped up the training
for their operatives considerably.
Without her it's possible this may not have happened.

The recent (18-24 months) improvements in the suspension procedures
at CI have been entirely due to the advice and efforts of Ms Maxim.
This is according to Andy Zawacki, Director and Plant Manager at CI.
(and yes I have his permission to quote him on this).

Only recently she pointed out how out date Alcor were on the matter of
Cryonics Property LLC.
This is a company involved in the management of the Alcor patient care fund,
an important element in the functions of Alcor I would have thought.
The company in question had been dissolved since September 2001.

Thanks to Melody Maxim the matter was brought to light and is now being
corrected.

There are probably many other examples of Ms Maxim's positive effect in the cryonics arena but I won't labour the point.

My observations lead me to the conclusion that she does a deal of good, and
in wanting the activities regulated and run by professionals, will find my support wherever I can offer same.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

June 25th, 2010, 4:51 pm #5

First, I want to say I am happy to see Mr. Ettinger posting, and I hope he has fully recovered from his accident, which I read about in "Long Life." I admire Mr. Ettinger, very much, and it pains me, somewhat, to disagree with him...but the fact remains that I do.

I don't include CI as a "culprit," in my criticisms, because I think of CI as an "innocent bystander," of sorts. I don't see CI spending a bundle of money, each year, on questionable projects, which get described as "research," or "R&D," but are really foolishness which keeps putting a lot of money in the same pockets, year-after-year, while resulting in little-to-no progress. I don't know how to resolve the problem of including CI in my broad statements, regarding the lack of progress, and to be honest, I have some questions regarding their current leadership, which seems to have a tendency to support those I believe behave unethically. I agree that CI has people with a good degree of relevant experience, and they seem to have been responsible with their research and finances.

Contrary to Mr. Ettinger, I do believe many qualified medical professionals would be happy to work in cryonics, if it were not for a large degree of corruption, at organizations, (other than CI), which have the funding to support qualified persons. No one can expect members of the medical community to read about cryonics, on the Internet, and say, "HEY...now THAT's something I would want to be involved in!" given the history, or for people like me to suggest my professional friends seek out employment, in cryonics, given my own experience. I am a medical professional who worked in cryonics, and if the situation would have been different, I believe I would have been able to bring in fellow professionals, and SA had a payroll more than generous enough to support such people. Instead, I wasted five months of my life, fighting for even the smallest needed changes in equipment, which would have been obvious to anyone familiar with conventional hypothermic arrest procedures, (and probably to anyone with common sense, who was not being paid to build the existing equipment). The resistance to change was not reasonable, or rational, on any level, and I think Mr. E. might be able to imagine the subversive manipulations, which ensued, when someone making a lot of money didn't want SA's projects, or personnel, questioned. For so long as a small group of people, with control of a large amount of funding are in positions of influence, I believe the few medical professionals who do cross paths with cryonics will have the limited choices of being corrupted themselves, or being run off.

As for finding a better way to help cryonics, I've come to the conclusion that the best hope is probably regulation. I don't see any other way to get rid of the negative influence, which I believe prevents medical professionals who would want to contribute, and cannot be corrupted (into "rubber-stamping" projects they know are foolish and unproductive), from being welcomed into well-funded organizations. I firmly believe that, had I been willing to endorse projects I knew (based on my professional experience with related procedures and equipment) were insane wastes of time and money, I could still be sitting at a desk at SA, and getting paid quite handsomely for simply agreeing with "the powers that be," (even when I knew them to be wrong). Unfortunately, that's not my dream job...I'd rather actually accomplish something.
Why is regulation a better solution than, say, competition?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

June 26th, 2010, 12:08 pm #6

Luke writes: "Why is regulation a better solution than, say, competition?"

For the sake of argument, let's just say it would cost one million a year, to compete with the existing combined services of Alcor and Suspended Animation...

How many investors does Luke know, who would be willing to put that kind of money into a business, which would probably have little-to-no return, for many years? How many people would be willing to invest that kind of money, in cryonics, at all, given the scandalous history? It's going to be difficult to market cryonics, given all the past bad behaviors of a handful of people, who have largely controlled the well-funded organizations. They've made sure, (whether intentionally, or not), that there is unlikely to be any competition. I think most investors would laugh at the notion of investing in cryonics. (As I recall, in years past, Platt and Pizer were unable to convince Mr. Laughlin to start a new organization, and he is known to have a strong, personal interest in cryonics.)

Cryonics isn't an investment; at this point in time, it's more like a charity. There are only two people proven to be willing to donate that kind of money. The only way to get them to change things is either to convince them they need new leadership, or to regulate their efforts.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

June 26th, 2010, 5:42 pm #7

First, I want to say I am happy to see Mr. Ettinger posting, and I hope he has fully recovered from his accident, which I read about in "Long Life." I admire Mr. Ettinger, very much, and it pains me, somewhat, to disagree with him...but the fact remains that I do.

I don't include CI as a "culprit," in my criticisms, because I think of CI as an "innocent bystander," of sorts. I don't see CI spending a bundle of money, each year, on questionable projects, which get described as "research," or "R&D," but are really foolishness which keeps putting a lot of money in the same pockets, year-after-year, while resulting in little-to-no progress. I don't know how to resolve the problem of including CI in my broad statements, regarding the lack of progress, and to be honest, I have some questions regarding their current leadership, which seems to have a tendency to support those I believe behave unethically. I agree that CI has people with a good degree of relevant experience, and they seem to have been responsible with their research and finances.

Contrary to Mr. Ettinger, I do believe many qualified medical professionals would be happy to work in cryonics, if it were not for a large degree of corruption, at organizations, (other than CI), which have the funding to support qualified persons. No one can expect members of the medical community to read about cryonics, on the Internet, and say, "HEY...now THAT's something I would want to be involved in!" given the history, or for people like me to suggest my professional friends seek out employment, in cryonics, given my own experience. I am a medical professional who worked in cryonics, and if the situation would have been different, I believe I would have been able to bring in fellow professionals, and SA had a payroll more than generous enough to support such people. Instead, I wasted five months of my life, fighting for even the smallest needed changes in equipment, which would have been obvious to anyone familiar with conventional hypothermic arrest procedures, (and probably to anyone with common sense, who was not being paid to build the existing equipment). The resistance to change was not reasonable, or rational, on any level, and I think Mr. E. might be able to imagine the subversive manipulations, which ensued, when someone making a lot of money didn't want SA's projects, or personnel, questioned. For so long as a small group of people, with control of a large amount of funding are in positions of influence, I believe the few medical professionals who do cross paths with cryonics will have the limited choices of being corrupted themselves, or being run off.

As for finding a better way to help cryonics, I've come to the conclusion that the best hope is probably regulation. I don't see any other way to get rid of the negative influence, which I believe prevents medical professionals who would want to contribute, and cannot be corrupted (into "rubber-stamping" projects they know are foolish and unproductive), from being welcomed into well-funded organizations. I firmly believe that, had I been willing to endorse projects I knew (based on my professional experience with related procedures and equipment) were insane wastes of time and money, I could still be sitting at a desk at SA, and getting paid quite handsomely for simply agreeing with "the powers that be," (even when I knew them to be wrong). Unfortunately, that's not my dream job...I'd rather actually accomplish something.
If regulations were imposed by some government, it is very unlikely that the regulations would require cryonics organizations to behave in a manner that is anything close to what Melody wants. Pay scales would absolutely not be regulated, nor would decisions regarding equipment. Qualifications of a few key personnel might be regulated, but certainly not to the extent that a perfusionist would be required. Regulations would not change the nature of expenditures on research. Much of the behavior that she keeps calling "unethical" is simply ordinary strategic business decisions that are outside the scope of regulations.

A few things that might be regulated:
- Money to be put in a trust for ongoing care (a legitimate need, although it has not been a problem for decades)
- Addressing cryonics one way or the other in the UAGA.
- Inspection of facilities as is currently done with funeral homes.
- Allowing cryonics as a means of final disposition.
- Restricting claims of revival.
- Qualifications of person performing procedures

It's the last item that seems to interest Melody the most. But that's also the hardest topic to regulate and the one mostly likely to cause harm. For example, let's say the new regulations allow only MDs, perfusionists, nurses, embalmers, paramedics, or similar to perform procedures. That immediately excludes the true experts such as Ben, Andy, Hugh, various PhDs, etc. Why does she think an embalmer with a TWO YEAR degree in mostly unrelated topics and no training in physiology at all is even remotely qualified?

Melody's posts are not about regulations for the good of individuals or society. That is clear from the discussion above. Regulations would not address her concerns. In all of her posts, her recurring theme is that other people are not acting the way she thinks they ought to act. Paul seems to feel that her posts have changed other people's behavior. I think that you can't change other people's behavior. Hopefully, Melody will eventually realize that she's banging her head against a wall that will not move. Of course, I can't make her stop banging her head on that wall. I can't make anyone do anything.
Quote
Like
Share

Unperson
Unperson

June 26th, 2010, 10:08 pm #8

First, I want to say I am happy to see Mr. Ettinger posting, and I hope he has fully recovered from his accident, which I read about in "Long Life." I admire Mr. Ettinger, very much, and it pains me, somewhat, to disagree with him...but the fact remains that I do.

I don't include CI as a "culprit," in my criticisms, because I think of CI as an "innocent bystander," of sorts. I don't see CI spending a bundle of money, each year, on questionable projects, which get described as "research," or "R&D," but are really foolishness which keeps putting a lot of money in the same pockets, year-after-year, while resulting in little-to-no progress. I don't know how to resolve the problem of including CI in my broad statements, regarding the lack of progress, and to be honest, I have some questions regarding their current leadership, which seems to have a tendency to support those I believe behave unethically. I agree that CI has people with a good degree of relevant experience, and they seem to have been responsible with their research and finances.

Contrary to Mr. Ettinger, I do believe many qualified medical professionals would be happy to work in cryonics, if it were not for a large degree of corruption, at organizations, (other than CI), which have the funding to support qualified persons. No one can expect members of the medical community to read about cryonics, on the Internet, and say, "HEY...now THAT's something I would want to be involved in!" given the history, or for people like me to suggest my professional friends seek out employment, in cryonics, given my own experience. I am a medical professional who worked in cryonics, and if the situation would have been different, I believe I would have been able to bring in fellow professionals, and SA had a payroll more than generous enough to support such people. Instead, I wasted five months of my life, fighting for even the smallest needed changes in equipment, which would have been obvious to anyone familiar with conventional hypothermic arrest procedures, (and probably to anyone with common sense, who was not being paid to build the existing equipment). The resistance to change was not reasonable, or rational, on any level, and I think Mr. E. might be able to imagine the subversive manipulations, which ensued, when someone making a lot of money didn't want SA's projects, or personnel, questioned. For so long as a small group of people, with control of a large amount of funding are in positions of influence, I believe the few medical professionals who do cross paths with cryonics will have the limited choices of being corrupted themselves, or being run off.

As for finding a better way to help cryonics, I've come to the conclusion that the best hope is probably regulation. I don't see any other way to get rid of the negative influence, which I believe prevents medical professionals who would want to contribute, and cannot be corrupted (into "rubber-stamping" projects they know are foolish and unproductive), from being welcomed into well-funded organizations. I firmly believe that, had I been willing to endorse projects I knew (based on my professional experience with related procedures and equipment) were insane wastes of time and money, I could still be sitting at a desk at SA, and getting paid quite handsomely for simply agreeing with "the powers that be," (even when I knew them to be wrong). Unfortunately, that's not my dream job...I'd rather actually accomplish something.
If Maxim is so concerned about anonymity being removed, and a desire to make suggestions, then let's please have her name names. I propose she follows hervadvice and make specific reference to what " leaders" she means and which "people" she feels are not qualified. She does no good with anonymous references. Perhaps she mentions one person who she says is not a perfionist. But, what is " qualified"? If qualified means listed as a member of a perfusionist society, is she qualified?

Is she in a position to dole out advice. Heck, let's hear oe see her proposed regulations and not just presume some amorphous regulations. Someone who feels she is in a position to criticize, and as someone said has done "good," let's make her great...please propose the regulations and qualifications. You have written tomes of critiques. Time to please provide that which you desire. Any specialty or specifics at all would be helpful...I think you think.

Don't forget to use specific names and facts as you believe so there is no anonymity of which you disdain. Thank you. I am truly looking forward to you specifics so we can all do better.

Or, feel free to move on.
Quote
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

June 26th, 2010, 10:31 pm #9

If regulations were imposed by some government, it is very unlikely that the regulations would require cryonics organizations to behave in a manner that is anything close to what Melody wants. Pay scales would absolutely not be regulated, nor would decisions regarding equipment. Qualifications of a few key personnel might be regulated, but certainly not to the extent that a perfusionist would be required. Regulations would not change the nature of expenditures on research. Much of the behavior that she keeps calling "unethical" is simply ordinary strategic business decisions that are outside the scope of regulations.

A few things that might be regulated:
- Money to be put in a trust for ongoing care (a legitimate need, although it has not been a problem for decades)
- Addressing cryonics one way or the other in the UAGA.
- Inspection of facilities as is currently done with funeral homes.
- Allowing cryonics as a means of final disposition.
- Restricting claims of revival.
- Qualifications of person performing procedures

It's the last item that seems to interest Melody the most. But that's also the hardest topic to regulate and the one mostly likely to cause harm. For example, let's say the new regulations allow only MDs, perfusionists, nurses, embalmers, paramedics, or similar to perform procedures. That immediately excludes the true experts such as Ben, Andy, Hugh, various PhDs, etc. Why does she think an embalmer with a TWO YEAR degree in mostly unrelated topics and no training in physiology at all is even remotely qualified?

Melody's posts are not about regulations for the good of individuals or society. That is clear from the discussion above. Regulations would not address her concerns. In all of her posts, her recurring theme is that other people are not acting the way she thinks they ought to act. Paul seems to feel that her posts have changed other people's behavior. I think that you can't change other people's behavior. Hopefully, Melody will eventually realize that she's banging her head against a wall that will not move. Of course, I can't make her stop banging her head on that wall. I can't make anyone do anything.
Jordan Sparks: "Much of the behavior that she keeps calling "unethical" is simply ordinary strategic business decisions that are outside the scope of regulations."

I believe that is a fairly inaccurate assessment of the situation.


Jordan Sparks: "For example, let's say the new regulations allow only MDs, perfusionists, nurses, embalmers, paramedics, or similar to perform procedures. That immediately excludes the true experts such as Ben, Andy, Hugh, various PhDs, etc."

Ben, Andy, Hugh and "various PhDs" are "true experts" in performing the tasks of advanced-level paramedics, vascular surgeons and perfusionists? Really?? I don't think so.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

June 27th, 2010, 4:28 am #10

If Maxim is so concerned about anonymity being removed, and a desire to make suggestions, then let's please have her name names. I propose she follows hervadvice and make specific reference to what " leaders" she means and which "people" she feels are not qualified. She does no good with anonymous references. Perhaps she mentions one person who she says is not a perfionist. But, what is " qualified"? If qualified means listed as a member of a perfusionist society, is she qualified?

Is she in a position to dole out advice. Heck, let's hear oe see her proposed regulations and not just presume some amorphous regulations. Someone who feels she is in a position to criticize, and as someone said has done "good," let's make her great...please propose the regulations and qualifications. You have written tomes of critiques. Time to please provide that which you desire. Any specialty or specifics at all would be helpful...I think you think.

Don't forget to use specific names and facts as you believe so there is no anonymity of which you disdain. Thank you. I am truly looking forward to you specifics so we can all do better.

Or, feel free to move on.
unperson said "Heck, let's hear oe see her proposed regulations and not just presume some amorphous regulations." I'm sure he meant "or" and the rest of his post was entertaining, but let's focus on this one gem he posited.

What the "Heck" regulations, exactly, do you think you can impose on cryonics?

Let's hear it in detail. And no, don't use the excuse you don't have to answer "anonymous persons" -- this is a PUBLIC FORUM and if you do not reply to all readers, your credibility is down the tubes.

Oh, and also, how about posting a copy of the text of the non-stack of letters you sent out to gazillions of agencies etc complaining about cryonics' use of propofol? We (NOT JUST ME) would love to see your "real" take on that.

FD
Quote
Like
Share