Upvoted to leave you beholden to me. BWAAAhahaha. I learnt that trick from Draco in HP:MOR.

The theoretical desirability and practicality of cryonics is what matters at this point. It's what the real controversy is about.

Upvoted. But I'll still talk about organizational matters below :)

The thing I like about Mike Darwin is that he offers technical criticisms of cryonics organizations without resorting to threats of strict regulation. Of course, I understand there are people who do not think highly of Darwin, and condescendingly claim we are being duped by this "dialysis technician" (who then conveniently leave out that he received additional training from Jerry Leaf). Perhaps those people should inform David Crippen MD that he has been duped by Mike. David is with the Department of Critical Care Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Mike must have lied about his credentials when submitting to his book "End-of-Life Communication in the ICU: A Global Perspective"

Mike also probably lied to get into this debate too: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414041/

;)

With that in mind, since I deeply care about useful external criticism (as opposed to mainstream medicine's silent apathy... because they are still stuck at the starting line by thinking that immortality is some separate magical state of being...), I want Melody to continue with her more technical critiques. However, I do want her to drop her threats of strict regulation, unless she can find many people who have gone through all of the paperwork of signing up and suddenly proclaiming, "Oh my god. You mean to tell me that Atul Gawande is not going to be at my bedside?" I understand the need in politics to sometimes play hardball, but this is different.

I encourage Less Wrong users to look at the language being employed here. Dr. Wowk is saying things like "Mayo clinic" from a life-saving perspective. Melody is saying things like "last wishes," and emphasizing licensed embalmers. I do not feel comfortable with such language being floated around regulation that its (potential) members don't want. At all. If any Less Wrong users do want such regulation without even having the intent of utilizing cryonics, then.... well.... shoo, go away.

Mostly the latter. I see someone use the absurdity heuristic, my conditioning kicks in, and I link to the post about it.

As for the "hypothermic vs cryothermic" criticism, well, no, I don't see the difference. The less the damage that's done to our decapitated, frozen, fractured heads between clinical death and freezing, the easier it will be to recover the person from the corpse. As far as I can tell, an extra 30 minutes of decay at room temperature really could end up making a significant difference.

Emergent! (waves garlic and cross)

In 2009, for reasons unrelated to changes in service as far as I can tell, she began criticizing Alcor as harshly as SA. SA and Alcor have been targets ever since.<

Prior to 2009, I had relatively little knowledge of what went on, at Alcor. When the Johnson book was published, (in 2009), I read a lot of stories, which were already familiar to me, (gossip I had heard at SA), and I did a lot of further reading on Alcor's own website. As I'm sure Dr. Wowk knows, whenever I dared to question Alcor, or remark on the Johnson book, I was subjected to the usual lies and personal attacks, (as opposed to polite, intelligent opposing arguments and/or explanations). I doubt he's as mystified by my response, as he states.

Conspicuous by absence have been criticisms of CI...open-circuit perfusion by a mortician for every CI case.<

I saw no reason to criticize CI, (at least, not until the "Cryogirl" and "Temple of Vampire" scandals, which I criticized, extensively), as I believed CI to be accurately representing the (however poor) quality of their services. Dr. Wowk is intelligent enough to realize what I have been objecting to, all these years, is the publishing of information, which might mislead people into believing the quality of services they are purchasing, is significantly greater than what it actually is. I have no idea as to why he seems to find CI's use of a licensed mortician, (someone skilled in vascular cannulations), to be inferior to some of the laymen, who have attempted to perform surgical procedures, on behalf of SA and/or Alcor.

That (CI's service), is not even remotely comparable to a hospital hypothermic surgery procedure, but there is no criticism of it.<

Again, why should I have criticized CI's primitive procedures, when they were forthcoming about the quality of services they were delivering?

What SA and Alcor have in common is that they both aspire to a higher standard of cryonics care than possible with morticians...<

Vraiment? Does Dr. Wowk really believe SA's Catherine Baldwin, or any other staff member of SA and/or Alcor, (during the time I was making my objections), could deliver a femoral cannulation, with more skill than CI's mortician? If his "higher standard of cryonics care" means simply putting someone in an ice bath, just about anyone off the street could have supplied that.

Dr. Wowk's "conspiracy theory" is ridiculous. My goal should have been clear, all along: Cryonics organizations needed to either (a) deliver cutting-edge technology, or (b) be honest about what they were selling. I haven't kept up with cryonics, for more than a year, (indeed, tonight is the first time I read Dr. Wowk's 14-month-old post), and I don't want to spend much time on it, now, but when I see someone as reputable as Dr. Wowk, attempting to paint the situation, (and me!), as something it is not, I must object.

I spent much of the day preparing a long post with hyperlinks to relevant articles, but then I realized it would be a bit of a jerk move and distract from the most important aspects of the discussion. I think this way is more succinct. I can't guarantee he will be accurately modeling the reality afterward, but it should at least help.

Incidentally, Politics is the Mind-Killer is one of my favorite articles from the How To Actually Change Your Mind sequence. The sub-sequence of the same name is also quite good, although I haven't read it all the way through yet. The basic point is that instead of taking sides (or thinking in terms of sides) we should be aiming to increase the correspondence of the map to the territory.

I do have somewhat tribal feelings towards cryonics (I don't know how you'd expect me not to) but I question them frequently and attempt to not let them be a factor in the reasoning process. If new evidence comes up, I definitely plan to update on it.

If I recall correctly, SA charges CI members $60,000 for field standby, stabilization, and transport. SA does approximately one or two cases per year, apparently using contract perfusionists and surgeons when available for the blood washout phase of procedures. The alternative for CI members is simple packing in ice some unspecified period after legal death, and shipment by a local mortician; no cardiopulmonary support, no associated rapid cooling, no blood washout.

As I understand it, Maxim makes two claims:

1. SA underdelivers and overcharges for services, ("incompetence") while representing itself in a disingenuous and probably legally prohibited way.

2. The industry SA operates in should be regulated because of claim 1.

If so, she is apparently saying that government regulations be put in place to force an organization with ~ $100K in annual revenues to spend up to $470K on salaries (recently computed elsewhere on Less Wrong) for a full-time certified perfusionist and a cardiovascular surgeon (how they would maintain skills is unspecified), or nobody should be allowed to attempt to provide any cryonics field service other than simple packing in ice. And the government should provide this consumer protection for two citizens per year even though nearly every medical expert, politician, regulator, inspector, and enforcement official will believe that these enforced medical standards are cargo cult science applied to dead bodies who could not possibly be revived because (a) they are already dead, and (b) the later cryopreservation itself is certainly fatal.

Why isn't there concern that by prematurely requiring highly credentialed people, by law, to do cryonics stabilizations that the government itself wouldn't be misleading people about the legitimacy of cryonics? The way things are now, people don't look to the government to evaluate cryonics procedures. (Nor should they for a field as small and misunderstood as cryonics.) People have to kick the tires themselves. They have to know how limited present cryopreservation procedures are. They have to read the case reports, know that mistakes happen, and decide for themselves whether $60,000 is likely to be worth more than simple packing in ice. They have to know what they are getting into.

The reason, in a nutshell, why I'm concerned about government regulation in the present state of development of cryonics is that by not understanding cryonics, not really caring about it, not actually valuing it, they will almost certainly get the regulation wrong. The extreme political hostility that has traditionally motivated calls for cryonics regulation also helps insure this. Good regulation requires good dialog, not name-calling.

SA underdelivers and overcharges for services, ("incompetence").

Yes, that is a good definition of incompetence. If they charge more than a competing service yet deliver less, to a sufficiently extreme degree, they meet that definition. However we could also compare to other points of references. What has historically been available in terms of cryonics stabilization?

Your replacement definition- "not as good as a real competitor"- is not one I've ever heard of, and I strongly contest that is the common understanding.

There is a difference between replacing a definition and narrowing in on a more specific form of a definition to eliminate connotative noise. That you are choose to refer to it in this way is insulting and misleading.

Is Miss Cleo "competent" at predicting the future because she's just as good as the next psychic hotline? Or are psychics who present themselves as anything but entertainers incompetent at their stated goal?

The term "incompetent" certainly does imply a standard to compare it to. Competitors (i.e. potential replacements) are commonplace for this purpose, hence the connotative meaning I chose to call attention to. Your stated example does have competitors by which we can objectively judge it inferior. A psychic is incompetent in comparison to rational thought in conjunction with adequate data on the matter of what one's future is. We wouldn't judge Miss Cleo incompetent relative to other psychics, we would judge her incompetent relative to the best available methods of predicting the future.

An alternative definition would be to judge competence by the standard of ability to accomplish a given expected end. However you would have to state exactly what that standard is, and establish that it is a reasonable one to expect, e.g. if the person or organization had promised to fulfill some particular obligation. A psychic fails at providing accurate descriptions of the future despite claiming to do so. Yet they are competent at invoking the proper cognitive biases in people to make them feel like their future is predicted accurately.

But even if we grant your replacement definition

Not a replacement, see above.

Claim 1 barely changes. We have two options: narrow our focus to services SA provides that are provided by competitors or switch words from 'incompetent' to 'fraud'.

In other words, we change the subject to:

while representing itself in a disingenuous and probably legally prohibited way.

I take this to refer to the person who naively used the term surgeon to refer to the person who was doing surgery on the patient in a case report?

One of the serious things Maxim has said is that SA and others have spent their time recreating devices that could have been bought cheaper, better, and faster by using currently available devices. That's hardly a good use of customer or benefactor money, and delays like that seem inexcusable if you believe effective cryonics stands between mortality and immortality.

This is a very, very weak argument for fraud or fakery. Furthermore, my understanding is that the money being wasted came from the guy who founded the company, not from patient stabilizations.

On the other hand, simply misrepresenting themselves is sufficient to earn the "fraud" description and be a target for regulation (either new, or already existing), even if the word 'incompetent' is inappropriate.

Which brings us to:

The industry SA operates in should be regulated because of claim 1.

You may not realize this, but you are claiming not only that SA is misrepresenting themselves, but doing so in a way that implies they should be regulated. That is a far stronger claim than the misrepresentation claim by itself.

There are plenty of people who misrepresent themselves in trivial ways and get away with it every day because the costs of regulation would outweigh the benefits. A person who is smiling may actually be unhappy, which is misrepresenting themselves. But the cost of regulating smiles is higher than the benefit. Your claim carries with it the implicit claim that regulating SA would do less harm than good. The history of regulation pertaining to cryonics suggests otherwise.

As to the term fraud, the hypothesis would have to be that there are patients being deceived and tricked out of their money under false pretenses. The existence of a cryonics stabilization customer who believes laymen are not employed in remote stabilization would provide strong evidence for this. The fact that their website does give the impression (in the pictures) that only medical professionals will work on you could be taken as evidence of this, I suppose -- but not overwhelmingly strong evidence, if you ask me.