CI needs SA, otherwise CI does "substandard cryonics"

A new overarching idea is emerging in the back of my mind that shoves aside all current debates around the C81 and SA situation. It turns out that I now see that CI has been doing cryonics in a far far more substandard way than I thought-- and so what is occurring is that Kent sees that-- and Best sees that too-- and here's a case of 'find a need and fill it"-- CI needs SA.

The cryonics process involves several critical steps but the most difficult step of all is being there upon declaration of death to do the initial cryonics operation-- wash out the blood, reduce temperature and perfuse with organ preservation solution. This first mult-pronged operation-- three functions-- are key to preventing the structural neural net degeneration in the first timespan after legal death. CI doesn't do that. In 1963 that might have been ok but it's 2007. My position was that I considered it odd that CI never made the attempt to do it. I'm not completely correct on that however.

CI had been relying on funeral directors. That was key to their entire program. Now, FD in CF points out that funeral directors are prevented from doing what SA did-- and CI's site indicates that as well-- that funeral directors USED to be able to do initial perfusion-- and there's even a reference to field perfusion-- but no longer "permitted". [+]. And so, for whatever reason, CI went back to square one... with no ability to do a valid up-to-date 2007 version of an "emergency cryonics rescue" ECR. Enter: SA

Some 34 CI members have signed up for the "extra" SA service-- which is kind of like saying upon buying a car, that the wheels are "extra". To take a service and break it down into it's particulate functions-- and call any combination of reduced number of parts the thing itself is a philosophical deconstruction that must be a fallacy of some sort... the deconstruction fallacy. At what point are you buying car parts rather than a car? At what point does a cryonics service become NOT a cryonics service. I think CI must have reached that point when the funeral directors were banned from doing an initial perfusion. A vital link in the cryopreservation chain broke-- it was a major disaster for CI-- and nobody billed it as that-- because they didn't want to draw attention to a major problem. CI's ENTIRE FUNERAL DIRECTOR APPROACH was BUSTED-- and we never really "knew" that-- fully.

34 CI members knew it though. That's why they believed it was "worth it" to sign up with SA. And yet-- we hear from Zawacki on CF, a personal friend of C81, that C81 didn't consider it "worth it"-- which is extremely odd now-- because what did C81 think was not worth the extra money?-- SA apparently did something that CI and CI's funeral directors could not do-- a valid ECR (emergency cryonics rescue with field washout, initial perfusion and initial cooldown on site). How could it not be "worth it?". C81 was in his 80's at the time of his deanimation, so my latest theory on this is that he simply didn't "get it". Despite SA's incompetence, SA's service, as was pointed out to me, was EXTRA... another way of saying that CI's service has a GAPING HOLE in it-- and C81 didn't SEE that hole? and 34 other CI people DO see that gaping hole? And C81's son saw the gaping hole too? -- despite not being a cryonicist himself? (not sure about that actually).

Anyway, my latest thought on this whole thing this morning-- is that CI needs SA-- and that SA could potentially get all of CI's people signed up-- legitimately-- because CI can't do the on-site initial perfusion using any form of ATP-- and therefore is offering substandard cryonics-- and has been doing do without saying so. What the SA function does, essentially, is bring CI up to 2007 standards. Sure it's haphazard and there are SA internal problems-- like nobody is trained in perfusion-- but the dimension of CI's problem is even worse. So it turns out that SA is not a cryonics "super service" but rather acts now as a "fill in the gap" service for the substandard CI situation.

For the first time, I see a legitimate reason for SA's existence, despite itself. It's somewhat ironic how this turned out-- Given this new theory, I started thinking last night about how Alcor's ECR team might have subcontracted to CI people-- and it occurred to me that Alcor members wouldn't go for that because that might pull Alcor personnel away from the Alcor membership at a critical time for one of Alcor's members. Still-- the idea of ECR team that functions by itself is concievable. The local ECR teams in each of the cities where there are significant numbers of Alcor members-- becomes the greater key to the program however-- not subcontracting. In this light, Alcor teams in various cities need to be highlighted and featured much more than they have been in the past. The new standby fee and capabilites should be combined with a more strenuous local action groups for dying members. This is most easily seen with the LA situation-- as well as northern CA.

My revised numbers for "fully signed up people" for cryonics has to be CI=34 and Alcor=800+. CI can no longer call someone "fully signed up" if they're not contracted with SA in my book... not by 2007 standards-- or even 1984 standards for that matter when leaf/darwin came up with a portable perfusion unit that the current Alcor ATp is based on-- as my understanding goes now.