Category Archives: Cryonics

In searching for some information for a new post I wanted to make, I stumbled upon an exchange I had with Ben Best, about Suspended Animation, more than two years ago. I wanted to preserve it on my blog, and find it still relevant since SA continues on a path of incompetence, (see this recent post, and this), so here it is:

Endless Debate
April 18 2008 at 6:14 PM

Ben: If SA had failed to wash-out the blood, then that could be a source of blood on the board, even without vascular damage. So it is contradictory to claim that the only source of blood could have been from vascular damage when you are claiming that residual blood would be expected from an inadequate wash-out.

You are correct, in that I should have written "possible evidence," as the blood Andy described could have indicated several things. I believe SA over-pressurized the patient to the point of vascular damage, due to what I consider to be a mountain of evidence in the SA report, regarding alarms, the funeral director inquiring if the pump was on at the time of the spurt, etc., and the general inability of the team to address the pressure issues they were obviously experiencing, as well as my personal knowledge of the members of the team and their capabilities (or lack thereof), and my expertise in perfusion. I believe the patient was subsequently under-perfused, due to what I calculate to be a rather low average flow rate.

Ben: In any case -- as I pointed-out previously -- a clot associated with the stroke hemorrhage in the right hemisphere dislodged during the vitrification perfusion, and there was adequate release of blood to explain blood on the board.

Andy has already anticipated the question I was going to ask, here, and has stated that perfusion was continued, following the removal of the clot, until the effluent was clear, and that the board was subsequently clean. SA attempted to perfuse the entire patient (both head and body), and CI perfused the head a second time, but it seems that blood remained in the patient and drained later, indicating an incomplete washout. I have to agree with Andy, that it is more probable the blood came from the body, rather than the head that was perfused twice, and I can’t imagine you want to argue that CI didn’t do an adequate isolated perfusion of the head.

Why did the clot remain, following SA’s attempts to perform the washout procedure, anyway? What about the clot-dissolving medications (streptokinase) the SA team supposedly administered? Are you aware that streptokinase is contraindicated in stroke patients? "Streptokinase has not been shown to benefit patients with acute ischemic stroke, but it has been shown to increase their risk of intracranial hemorrhage and death. Of 3 major randomized controlled trials, all were terminated prematurely because streptokinase was associated with unacceptable rates of mortality." http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic558.htm

Ben: My use of the word "fabrication" was meant in the sense of rationalization not intentional deception ("lie"). I believe the authors wrote that the blood spurt occurred under pressure from the ATP to rationalize or explain the spurt, without good evidence for this rationalization.

Where I come from, (the South), the word "fabrication" is a polite word for "lie." At any rate, there should be no tolerance of "rationalization," or "fabrication," in a medical case report. Of course, what can we expect from someone who excels at writing FICTION? (Not that there is anything wrong with fiction, when it is identified as such.) There’s a lot of other information that should not have been included in the SA case report, such as comments about an employee’s second job, and comments about a former employee, and I think you know the spirit in which those comments were made. I believe there has been a lot of "rationalization" at SA, in the past, "rationalization" that has perhaps led to quite a few ill-advised courses of action, the firing and resignations of capable persons, AND perhaps in people like you, Ben, believing in the capabilities of SA more than you should.

Ben: There would be no motive for the authors to intentionally deceive readers into believing that the ATP caused the blood spurt. That is the crux of your case that damage was caused.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head, Ben. The authors could not possibly want to deceive people into believing they over-pressurized the patient. The point is: THEY DID NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT PERFUSION TO REALIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!! The crux of my case that damage was caused are details in the report, and the fact that the SA team and case authors didn't have a clue as to what they were doing, or even writing. I think it's blatantly obvious they were too ignorant of perfusion technology to realize that what you now call a "rationalization" would strongly indicate damaging over-pressurization of the patient. Who in the world would create, and include, fabricated remarks in a report, that would indicate malpractice??? Only someone who was not knowledgeable enough to understand that what he was writing would indicate gross mistreatment of a patient. Why are you so willing to turn over the care of CI's patients to people who know so little about the medical procedures they claim to be capable of providing? How can you call them “experts,” and refer to their services as “state of the art,” when their staff members are extremely unqualified and they are decades behind, in regard to the quality of care provided in conventional medicine, in virtually identical procedures?

Ben: I could say that your arguments are self-serving because you have had bitter personal experiences with Charles Platt and you want to prove that he is an evil, incompetent man. It is better to stick to the evidence of the case than to challenge motives and character -- which too easily leads to acrimony.

I don't think I would call Charles, (or anyone), "evil," and I don't think he is "incompetent," in general. (I think you'll find me sincerely praising his writing skills, and other talents, on this forum, on a number of occasions.) However, I do believe he has no place in managing people, or in making decisions regarding medical procedures and/or the related equipment.

Are the motives and character of someone who exerts a significant amount of influence over major decisions of a company that is offering medical services irrelevant? I think not. What if their motives ARE self-interest, greed, or their own egotistical needs, more so than patient care or overall progress in the field?

If you consider someone who doesn't want cryopreservation to be “committing suicide,” as you seem to, then is a company providing less than optimal medical care, when they can afford quality professionals and equipment, not guilty of “negligent homicide,” at best? Why should a company send a fabricator to attempt a very dangerous medical procedure, when they pay him the same salary as a qualified person who could SAFELY perform the procedure? I have no idea how you can be supportive of this behavior, or how you don't see that the main focus of SA, for many years, has been certain "engineering" projects, rather than the provision of competent patient care. I believe this is clearly evidenced by the three inexperienced, unqualified people who showed up for the CI-81 case.

Ben: I think that what serves me best is to know the truth, whether this be mistakes or a job well done. The case reports I write disclose many mistakes, including mistakes made by me. The best way to avoid repeating future mistakes is to document them well and think about how to avoid making the same mistakes again in the future.

The best way for SA to avoid mistakes in perfusing a patient, would be to take the $77,000 being paid to one of the fabricators who was on the CI-81 team and pay it to a perfusionist. They can report perfusion mistakes until the earth gets swallowed up by the sun, but they are not going to be able to properly train laymen with a weekend trip to California, some videos, and one case in four years. Anyone who thinks they can doesn't have a proper understanding of perfusion technology.

Ben: I do not accept the claim that if a person perfusing a cryonics Patient has not had four years of perfusion training that that the patient will necessarily have experienced vascular damage

I certainly agree that I could have probably been a good perfusionist without the numerous hours of English, History, Government, Psychology, and other classes I was required to take for my degree, but I believe I would have killed quite a number of patients without my clinical experience. I performed 110 cases, on human patients, with an instructor standing over my shoulder, to prevent me from harming anyone, before I graduated perfusion school. This was after many months of classroom instruction on perfusion techniques, and with a good understanding of anatomy and physiology. How in the world can anyone as intelligent as you, believe Gary and Ken can walk out of the shop and safely perform perfusion? You can only think this because, as my husband says, "people don't know what they don't know." What you don't know about perfusion and the SA personnel allows you to believe they can safely perform whole body perfusion, but I believe I know better.

Ben: By that logic every cryonics patient ever perfused or given a wash-out by CI or Alcor would have experienced serious vascular damage -- more harm than good -- because they were not perfused or washed-out by a professional perfusionist. Why single-out the 81st patient?

It's wrong of you to say I assume every patient has experienced serious vascular damage, as there isn't much evidence of over-pressurization in CI's reports. The circuit pressures CI mistakenly recorded as patient pressures would have been significantly higher than the actual patient pressures, so I doubt any pressure-induced vascular damage occurred. In that situation, I would be more concerned with wondering if the pressure was high enough to adequately perfuse the brain. I single out the 81st patient because it's the only SA case report I've thoroughly reviewed, and as far as I know it is the only case performed by the current staff. As I’ve mentioned, many times before, my purpose is to expose what I believe to be irresponsible and unethical behavior at a company of which I have firsthand knowledge, so I have no idea why you think I would discuss Alcor, or CI cases, in which SA was not involved. There are a number of other reasons I single out the SA case, including the fact that SA can afford medical professionals, while Alcor and CI may not be able to.

Ben: I acknowledge that improving perfusion quality is important, and I believe that Alcor, CI and SA are all making efforts to improve perfusion quality. The point at issue here is not whether perfusion in cryonics (or for the 81st patient) could have been better, but whether vascular damage was caused.

The REAL question I’m asking is: Why is SA not providing qualified, experienced perfusionists and EMTs or paramedics, when they can easily afford to? Why should they pay equivalent salaries to people who don't even understand the procedures enough to realize what their reports indicate, or worse yet, to people incapable of even authoring their own reports, due to their total lack of knowledge in regard to the procedures, and medicine and cryonics, in general?! With the salaries they pay, SA should be providing EXCELLENT, PROFESSIONAL medical services, not simply "better" than what has been available in cryonics, in the past.

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your comments in regard to SA's efforts to improve. I don't see any evidence of change, other than the last News Bulletin which indicated they have implemented a few suggestions Mathew, Aschwin and I made a long time ago, suggestions that were previously ignored, (BLS certification, lift gates, etc.) It also included news regarding the new "workshop" in California, which only leads me to believe the primary focus of SA remains the "engineering and design" projects of Charles Platt. We haven't heard anything from SA, in months. When you tell me SA is using the more than half-a-million-dollars I (conservatively) estimate they are spending, annually, on their payroll and consulting fees, to pay for medical professionals, as they should, I'll believe SA is making an effort to improve.

Ben: Even if a single spurt caused some harm (and this is questionable if a spurt would relieve pressure and the ATP was immediately turned-off) it does not constitute evidence that it resulted in such damage as to override the many benefits of the SA treatment for the patient.

WHAT BENEFITS, Ben??? Packing the patient in ice and performing chest compressions, or injecting meds into IVs that were, fortunately, left in place by hospital personnel? (I don't believe any of the three SA team members would have been able to gain IV access.) Almost anyone off the street could and would do those things, for not much more than minimum wage, so why does SA WASTE a payroll and consulting fees that are most certainly well over a half-a-million dollars a year on this??? (Again, I think this figure is conservative.) Don't you get my point that SA could have a qualified perfusionist, and medical personnel experienced at intubation and the insertion of IVs, for the amount of money they spend on employees and consultants?? And, why do you believe CI's clients should pay $60,000, (about three times the cost of open-heart surgery), for a bunch of rank amateurs to possibly harm them through the improper use of a perfusion circuit, rather than leaving that money to cryonics research, or their heirs? Note from October 10, 2010: I neglected to note that this comment, from Ben, was inherently ridiculous. it was not the "single spurt" that would have caused the harm, but the pressure that had built up inside the patient, prior to the incision, (which resulted in the spurt), that would have been deleterious. The spurt was not the problem; it was evidence that inappropriate pressures had been applied to CI-81's vascular system, and hence all internal organs and tissues, (including the brain, of course), for god-knows-how-long, prior to the cannulation attempt.

Ben: I am not claiming to certain knowledge of what happened during the wash-out. Any scenario I can construct of the events associated with the blood spurt is like a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces missing -- or pieces that don't fit. But although all the explanations have deficiencies, none of them can be used to make a convincing argument for vascular damage. This was the key point of my posting, and you did not address this point in your reply.

I think the report has more than enough circumstantial evidence that charges of gross negligence and malpractice, most likely including over-pressurization to the point of vascular damage, would hold up in court, if this were not a "legally dead" person.

Ben: I regret if anything I have had to say here strikes you as a personal offense.

Ditto. I also regret that we have such strong difference of opinion, in regard to the services of SA, but you know I will argue that I understand perfusion better than you, and that I have experience working with the SA staff and consultants, other than Ms. Baldwin. You don't offend me, but you disappoint me by continuing to endorse a company I feel has behaved unethically, and has shown little evidence of a change in strategy.

CI is, for the most part, SA’s only source of new clients and therefore holds the leverage to force that company to behave more responsibly by demanding they provide experienced, qualified personnel, (which would not affect their budget), yet you don’t do this. In my mind, there won't be significant change at SA, for as long as the staff and consultants remain the same, and you are helping to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, I feel this endless debate could go back-and-forth, forever, so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

From Healthgrades.com:

"WARNING: Federal Law prohibits any person from:

•Impersonating a physician
•Falsely representing themselves as a physician
•Falsely claiming to represent a physician
•Falsifying physician information or
•Any other fraudulent activities related to physician identification and/or information"
http://www.healthgrades.com/profile-manager/Security/PrimaryLandingPage.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2Fprofile-manager%2FDefault.aspx

I don't know about everyone else, but I believe referring to one's self, as a "surgeon," (ala Catherine Baldwin and others working in cryonics), is the same as "impersonating a physician," or "falsely representing themselves as a physician," since one cannot be a surgeon without first being a physician. (ALL surgeons are physicians, hence calling one's self a "surgeon" is equivalent to calling one's self a "physician.")

In addition to federal laws, there are state laws against mispresenting one's self as a physician.

In response to my pondering whether it is legal for Alcor to refer to the residents of the Dewars as "patients," some anonymous soul, on CF responded:

"The U.S. Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; _or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press_"

Of course it is legal for Alcor to say whatever they like. If you don't like it, it is also legal for you to disagree, using your own printing press, as you are doing."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286384136/Is+it+legal+to+say+that-

First Amendment protection does not allow individuals, or entitites, to "say whatever they like," and if "Fundie" wants proof of that, he should consult with Charles Platt, or maybe with Mr. Platt's attorney, who specializes in law related to First Amendment protection.

In addition to the obvious restriction of laws related to libel and slander, there are also laws that prohibit people from impersonating physicians and other medical professionals. In calling their clients "patients," I believe organizations such as Alcor and Suspended Animation are implying the existence of qualified medical personnel. In addition to that, they often refer to their personnel as "surgeons," or other medical professionals, when the people they are referring to often have absolutely no medical training, and are not physicians, much less surgeons. This seems to be a fraudulent public representation of their personnel, and I think it should be against the law...if it's not, already.

Robert Ettinger has been attempting to make a point-by-point argument, (on Cold Filter and Cryonet), against the probability of uploading being successful. I happen to agree with Mr. Ettinger, that copies can never be the original, but that doesn't seem to matter to many cryonicists / transhumanists. For many years, I thought the goal of uploading was for an individual to live on, but it only recently dawned on me that I've been mistaken. It seems the majority of the transhumanists would be happy if a mere copy of themselves "lived" on, after they were dead. Personally, I think, with extremely rare exceptions, future generations would find copies of the thinking patterns of dead people, programmed into computers unnecessary, and the associated narcissism laughable.

This morning, Mr. Ettinger writes:
"Reason 3. Time intervals in the computer and in life...
Now, assume the original lives on, while his simulation is being run on the computer. The simulation "lives" like a film with frames at non-zero intervals. The original lives in some fashion not presently understood--possibly in a continuous fashion with no gaps, or possibly jumping each time to an appreciably different state with nothing in between. Even in the latter case, however, it is exceedingly unlikely that the intervals between successive states would be the same for the original and for the simulation. Hence, it seems to me, the simulation cannot be faithful to the original. Again, we can't know yet how important the differences may be, but there will surely be differences."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286501818/Reason+3--why+uploading+unlikely

Suspended Animation's Mathew Sullivan, responds with:
"At a basic level, the "simulation" is nothing more than a tool...
My car does not function exactly as me and it does not even have legs, but it can get me to work more efficiently than I can by jogging."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286507653/At+a+basic+level%2C+the+%26quot%3Bsimulation%26quot%3B+is+nothing+more+than+a+tool

Huh? How is that supposed to be an argument for uploading? The simulation is a "tool" for what? I don't get it.

Luke Parrish responds to one of Mr. Ettinger's arguments with:
"Ultimately, saying that the paper with a complete programmatic description (combined, presumably at some point with a turing machine which simulates it) is not a hydrogen atom is simply begging the question. How do you know it is not a hydrogen atom? What property is essential to our definition of hydrogen atoms which this lacks?"
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286030862/Marks+on+paper

Huh? again. It lacks being a real hydrogen item, that's what it lacks. A description, or simulation of a hydrogen atom, written in code in a computer, is exactly that...a description or simulation, not the original, or even a hydrogen atom, at all. Later on, in the discussion, Luke admits the computerized simulation of the hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom "in abstract form," but still calls it "the atom," something Mr. Ettinger seems to find as puzzling as I.

To sum up my thinking about these exchanges, my question is:
If Luke programs a perfect copy of a bear and its environment, into his computer, and his virtual bear takes a virtual crap in the virtual woods, does Luke smell it?

As I've always said, if nothing else, the cryonics forums are good for cheap entertainment. (Not referring to Mr. Ettinger's remarks, but to the responses to those remarks.)

On occasion, someone will ask me why I "want to destroy cryonics." My answer is, "cryonics" is not something I, or anyone else, can destroy. Cryonics is a hypothesis, an idea, not any one of the existing cryonics organizations, or even the sum total of those organizations. The experiment of cryonics is, (or should be), based on existing proven medical procedures, in which patients are cooled to a state of "death," for operations, which require the cessation of blood flow to the patient's brain.

I don't think it's irrational to wonder how far the limits of existing hypothermic medical science/procedures can be pushed, but it definitely IS irrational to think a group of laymen, who have made little-to-no progress over the last forty years, should be looked upon as "experts" capable of carrying out the experiment of cryonics. People incapable of competently delivering well-established procedures, after so many decades of trying, aren't likely to ever be capable of delivering something more advanced.

Cryonics experiments should be centered around attempting to perfect medications and solutions, and cooling and storage protocols, that will permit a body to be taken to extremely low temperatures, and held there for years, without tremendous structural damage. The procedures and equipment needed to safely, and effectively, deliver medications and solutions to the human body, via perfusion technology, were virtually-perfected, decades ago. Yet, organizations such as Alcor and some of the LEF-funded organizations have spent decades, and many, MANY millions of dollars, trying to do the layman's version of these procedures. Much of their "research" has been spent on ridiculous DIY versions of existing medical equipment, and trying to train laymen, (who will have no proper instruction, and no opportunity for significant clinical practice), to perform existing medical procedures. (In other words, instead of taking existing technology and building on it, they've been trying to replicate medical procedures that have been around for many decades, and failing to deliver those procedures with any significant degree of competency.)

I watched Saul Kent/Life Extension Foundation fund MANY thousands of dollars, over a protracted period of time, for a layman's attempts to build a perfusion level detector, when an FDA-approved version could be bought off the shelf, for less than $400, and that is only one example of the extensive foolishness carried out by organizations such as Suspended Animation and Alcor. On top of the decades worth of DIY projects, carried out by people who most often don't have a proper grasp of the medical procedures for which the equipment is needed, there is report, after report, after report, of laymen bungling well-established medical procedures, and a growing list of Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor's glaring mistakes, in regard to conducting these procedures.

What really bothers me is my belief that organizations, such as Alcor and SA, attempt to deceive an unsuspecting public into believing they are organizations comprised of competent medical professionals. The last SA case report was laced with clumsily-used and incorrect medical terminology, clearly intended to deceive the reader. Alcor, repeatedly, refers to the dead as "patients" and laymen as "surgeons," in their case reports and other propaganda. I don't care what is in the fine print of their contracts; the public representations of these companies is what I consider to be fraudulent, to an extreme degree.

If I were a laymen, reading Alcor's and/or Suspended Animation's reports, (which are filled with medical terminology, and describe "surgeons" performing operations), I would think these people were legitimate medical organizations. THEY ARE NOT. In my opinion, some cryonics organizations appear to be attempting to swindle people out of tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, hefty bequests, or even their entire estates, if they can. What do they promise to deliver, in exchange for that money? NOTHING, but I think it's probably difficult for most laymen to come to that realization, given all the public references to "patients" and "surgeons," and the medical jargon.

It's time someone stepped in and put a stop to this charade. Playing on the fear of death, and taking six figures, or the entire life's savings, of individuals who are led to believe they may have an opportunity to be resurrected in the future, by a bunch of quacks, is entirely unacceptable. It's time for the medical community, regulatory agencies related to issues involving the treatment of people at the time of legal death, and agencies interested in protecting the people from being swindled out of their lifelong savings, by organizations misrepresenting the qualifications of their staff members and misrepresenting their ability to competently perform clinical experiments related to the medical sciences.

A DISCLAIMER: I know next-to-nothing about technologies related to uploading; but I get the general idea.

"Mind uploading or whole brain emulation (sometimes called mind transfer) is the hypothetical process of scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail and copying its state into a computer system or another computational device. The computer would have to run a simulation model so faithful to the original that it would behave in essentially the same way as the original brain, or for all practical purposes, indistinguishably.[1] The simulated mind is assumed to be part of a virtual reality simulated world, supported by a simplified body simulation model. Alternatively, the simulated mind could be assumed to reside in a computer inside (or connected to) a humanoid robot or a biological body, replacing its brain." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

The two cryonics forums I read, regularly, (Cold Filter and Cryonet), have been comprised mostly of discussions regarding mind uploading, in recent weeks, with little-to-nothing being written about the current state of cryonics activities, or the medical science related to cryonics. I always thought the goal of cryonics was to prolong one's life, but it seems many cryonicists would be happy just to know the world would continued to be "blessed" with a copy, (or multiple copies!), of themselves, once they are dead. It's the ultimate in narcissism.

Edgar Swank, of American Cryonics Society (ACS), thinks a copy of his mind/personality living in some sort of virtual reality would be "heaven." I guess he thinks he could run a program and a virtual Angelina Jolie would show up at his imaginary door, ready to fulfill his every desire. He doesn't seem to care that it would be make-believe, or that someone like Ms. Jolie wouldn't touch him with a 40-foot pole, in reality. He writes: "Arcturus also wants to be reconstituted in a body of some kind and compares living inside a computer to locked-in syndrome. But living in a sufficiently rich virtual reality would not be like that at all. One could have any kind of virtual body one wanted, including any super powers one might imagine. I don't see any problem moving from the virtual reality to an advanced android or cyborg body. But I expect most people would choose the virtual reality, at least most of the time." http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32874 Does Mr. Swank consider the possibility that the future would not tolerate his narcissistic virtual world, and someone would come along and pull the plug? Who, in the future, would care about some computer on a desk, being of no benefit to anyone, or anything, other than itself? "Hey, Joe, look at this old schmuck, sitting around taking up space, running programs about sexual fantasies and superhuman powers, just to satisfy itself. Move that thing to the dumpster."

"Virtual" is the key word in Mr. Swank's fantasies about living in a world where he can fool himself into believing he has the body of Ryan Reynolds and can fly like superman. It's not much of a stretch of my imagination to think Mr. Swank would be satisfied with virtual reality, since I believe he already lives in a make-believe world. (More on that, in a future post.) The rest of us, however, really want to LIVE, and virtual pleasure and happiness would be quite hollow. (I'm assuming a machine, making itself "feel" happy, would be intelligent to "know" it was doing so. At any point, would the computer latch onto the "yin and yang," and realize life is not complete without the reality of disappointments? That victories are insignificant without the possibility of defeat? That there would be no genuine reward in running a virtual marathon in your own little universe, where you could assure you would always be the virtual winner?

Let's suppose, by some miraculous technology, I was able to transfer my memory and personality into a computer, or even a humanoid robot. Let's say, at the time, I am lying on my deathbed, knowing I will die within the next few days. Would it give me any comfort to know a copy of me would live on, after I am dead? Absolutely not. Once dead, I would no longer be able to hold my loved ones, to stand with arms outstretched in a glorious rain, or engage in any other joyful experiences of life. Leaving behind a copy would only console me if I was narcissistic enough to think the world would be blessed by having a copy of me, instead of someone new and unique, and I am not narcissistically delusional enough to believe that. The world will be fine without a copy of me, and though my copy may THINK it is me, the REAL me would still be dead.

From Aschwin and Chana de Wolf's Depressed Metabolism blog:
Cryonics is often associated with ideas like mind uploading and transhumanism. One negative consequence of this (un)intentional association is that some people who are considering cryonics feel that they have to embrace a much larger set of controversial ideas than what they are actually being asked to consider. As a result, there is a real risk that people reject cryonics for reasons that have little to do with the proposal of cryonics itself. Advocates of cryonics do not do themselves a favor by promoting the idea of human cryopreservation as part of a larger set of futurist ideas instead of just promoting cryonics as an experimental medical procedure to extend life. There is too much at stake to alienate people by piling more controversial ideas on top of what is already considered to be a radical idea. Such a low-key attitude will also produce a more consistent message because it extends the element of uncertainty that is inherent in cryonics to other areas of life as well. http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2010/09/22/mind-uploading-falsifiability-and-cryonics/

As much as I admire Aschwin, I think he has yet to realize that the idea of training laymen to perform the "experimental medical procedure" of cryonics is just as much of a fantasy as Mr. Swank's virtual world. Cryonics procedures require performing the tasks of advanced paramedics, vascular surgeons and perfusionists. Laymen being trained, (by other laymen, for the most part), are never going to be able to perform these procedures properly, given the lack of expertise on the part of their instructors and the lack of opportunity to have the degree of clinical experience needed to gain proficiency in performing those tasks.

The fact that so many people interested in cryonics are also interested in other "radical ideas" shows that most of these people live their lives out engaging in fantasy. Few of them are scientists, or medical professionals; for the most part, they are laymen engaging in what I would call "mental masturbation."