CI's 83rd patient "doesn't count" in my book.

This is getting rediculous. I can see now that the number of cases in cryonics can't be simply counted by people frozen-- because this CI #83 wasn't a "real" cryonics case. [+]

It appears to be a "straight freeze" of a non-member by the son. That's not cryonics. I don't know what it is-- it's something other than what I became interested in years ago-- called "cryonics". This latest CI case is more like the Colorado Grandfather situation-- on dry ice. I am personally not in the class of substandard "cryonics" like this because I've been fully signed up for years- this 91 year old woman had plenty of time to "sign up"-- and apprently DID-- but it's not clear SHE did-- the SON signed her up-- and very very late in the game--

" The son did make his mother a Member before she deanimated, however, and was thereby able to have her preserved for $28,000 (plus funeral director expenses). The son later remarked that once they had decided on cryonics, the technical details were far less daunting than they had expected.

It's not clear if the SON is even signed up so this entire business of kids getting their parents frozen is become a real nasty problem in my mind. OF course, it's all anonymous so we can't discuss it with the guy. And these sons and daughters NEVER seem to come out of the woodwork. Same types of cases occur at Alcor-- in terms of kids signing their parents in-- kids who are not signed up themselves. What the HELL is going on in these cases? SOAB.

So where did he raise the $28,000? Most of "us" cryonicists put life insurance together-- Where did this guy "get" $28 grand? Why is he so motivated to preserve his parents? Has he written about cryonics? Is there another reason that kids sign their parents in? I could be delusional, but it seems to me that there's a component of the "cryonics" industry that is hidden and which if the "cover was blown off", we'd see much more clearly what's really going on. Fine-- call me paranoid. I don't care anymore-- all I know it-- that there is so much to this case that is MISSING-- that I'm not happy with my comprehension of it.... or cases like it.

"The patient deanimated on July 12 and was received by the Cryonics Institute at 2:15 p.m. on August 2."

NOW WHY IS IT-- that here we have a "case report" that BEGS the question "Is the son signed up"-- and yet NO REFERENCE is made to that?

"Her cryopreservation was arranged by one son (with permission of his brother). The son had spoken to Robert Ettinger ten years previously at the time the son's father was ill (and died too quickly). The son did not have the money up front to pay for the cryopreservation, so after his mother deanimated he had her stored on dry ice until he could raise the funds. She remained in the hospital cooler with the funeral director packing dry ice. The son did make his mother a Member before she deanimated, however, and was thereby able to have her preserved for $28,000 (plus funeral director expenses). "

So this guy bends over backwards to preserve his father and mother-- with no funding-- He raises the funds from July 12 to Aug. 2-- THAT"s some fundraising-- $28 gees in less than a month. WOW! This guy is one hot dude in finance isn't he? No money-- then BINGO--

Cryonics needs private investigators. I'd love to get to the bottom of this one.

Awhile ago, I made a distinction between cryo-kidnapped people and cryonauts. This woman was cryo-kidnapped, it appears to me. She was no cryonaut. And the son might not even be a cryonaut. It's not legitimate cryonics and the kind of person who cryo-kidnaps their parents is not something I understand. Notice how CI wrote this--

The son later remarked that once they had decided on cryonics, the technical details were far less daunting than they had expected

Once "THEY" decided-- who's THEY? It's written to make the reader assume the mother was involved-- but it can also be interepreted as the two sons-- they decided for her--

When counting cryonics cases-- we should as an industry only COUNT the people who were signed up. I'll review Alcor's and CI's numbers in light of "cryonauts" who actually planned to be preserved. The other category of people involves the "cryo-kidnapped". There's a hell of a story for the tabloids!

Notice that C83 was signed up but unlike C81-- SA was obviously not going to be a part of that. So it appears to ME-- and I'm certainly no great reference point-- but nonetheless-- I consider MYSELF to be my OWN reference-- and IT SEEMS TO ME-- that SA "cherry picks" from CI's caseload. Cherry picking is a well known type of strategy in lots of professions. I would imagine that SA is going to be cherry picking Alcor before too long-- in fact it already has, actually-- having been involved in the TW case-- which most people don't refer to... ever.. and yet there it is! Amazing. There's cryonics-- and there's "cryonics for the rest of us plebians". It turns out that cryonics, by its very nature, is underground. The stuff that's published is a front. It's just the way it is-- that's MY OPINION- for those of you who want all the t's crosses and i's dotted on what we say on the internet blogs.

Well, that's okay... as long as I KNOW what the score it-- for ME. Just as in my Larouche work-- I KNOW what the score is-- and if civilization fails and the USA decends into a nightmare of hell on earth, and I die miserably-- at LEAST I'll know why. Not knowing WHY you suffer painful death is a lot worse, I think, than knowing how and why that happened. Sure they're both awful-- but there IS a certain JOY in knowing WHY or HOW things came to be. It doesn't compensate entirely but it's there and it's a factor... and it's something I really hang onto.

Last point-- it's possibel that CI cannot be considered to be doing "real cryonics" at all because so many of their cases are so far below standards that they MUST be distinguised from types of cases where perfusion is done quickly after death. We need a RATING SYSTEM for quality control-- this should been in place a long time ago... WE need a QUALITY INDEX-- and cryos should discuss (like that's posible)-- what factors to factor into the index-- and the final number should be a rank on a scale of 1 to 10.... 10 being the best-- and then associated with a year... so we know what was consdered best for the standards that year.

10-2007 would be the best for 2007, and 10-1966 would be the best for that year.

I would say C81-- got pretty good treatmennt-- but CI might have done well too given what they say their capabilities are-- still we're looking at a potential C81-Qi-7-2007 (Qi= quality index)-- just off the top of my head as a starting point-- And C82-Qi=2-2007. It may be that Qi for all CI cases are 1 or 2. Where there is potential for 7+, that's where SA will cherry pick. Alcor's cases likely are mostly 7+ with occasional lower Qi's. Definitely SA would want their average to be 7+ or even greater because they want to take the high ground in ECR (emergency cryonics rescue)...

blah blah blah-- I could go on but this is rediculous. Would someone other than me start blogging on cryonics cases please. Thank yu VERY MUCH. Sheesh.

Center of cryonics-- where is it? (1)
chemrails (1)
Christian cryonics-- blogger (1)
Christian cryonics-- Jesus would have supported cryonics (1)
CI-- case 83 (1)
Classical FutureHumanism-- 00. Intro. (2)
classroom-- cryonics education process-- cold (1)
Cold Filter-- cryonics discussion forum observations (1)
Cold Filter-- FD-- Overview of Alcor-SA-NOT Ci (1)
Cold Filter-- Maxim-- SA site needs updating (1)
Cold Filter-- not a general discussion but rather FD controlled space (1)
comp