Further to my last blog post, A survey of anti-cryonics writing :
- I copied the article to LessWrong.com after being encouraged to do so by users there who also gave me some great help improving the writing. It had 215 comments last I looked.
- I received email from Ralph Merkle:
I asked David Pegg to review an early copy of “The Technical Feasibility of Cryonics.” My exchange with him was published in Cryonics magazine in the July/August 1993 issue starting on page 22. I believe you will find it interesting.I haven’t had trouble commenting, so any help anyone can provide reproducing and diagnosing these problems gratefully received.
My response to Shermer’s story in Scientific American is on the web.
And, of course, my thanks for your efforts to seek clarification from “critics” of their actual technical criticism (if any).
- I missed a couple of anti-cryonics articles in my survey:
- I found this article in which John Bischof speaks out against cryonics, so I mailed him, and he very politely replied almost immediately to say that cryobiologists consider cryonics a “faith based approach”, and pointed me at the Society for Cryobiology home page. Pressed for more detail, he replied:
I think the distinction is between a tissue being dead vs. alive at the time of freezing. I don’t believe there is anything I can possibly write that would further clarify that distinction.I’ve yet to reply to this email; I may write a more general open letter to cryonics critics and send him a link. As always, I’m grateful for the time taken to reply.
- Updated 2010-02-16: I found this Detroit News article in which Society for Cryobiology President John K Critser voices a negative opinion. Email sent 2010-02-11, no reply so far.
- Updated 2010-02-20: Have now emailed again everyone I emailed last time drawing their attention to these articles. Really hoping that some of what I’ve written here spurs one of them into writing a more detailed attack on some aspect of cryonics.
- Updated 2010-02-20: Got a reply from Stephen Barrett MD of QuackWatch: “Sorry, I am not interested in further involvement in your project. ”