X-Message-Number: 11694
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 08:52:05 -0700
From: "Joseph J. Strout" <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics: Yesterday's Technology Tomorrow

On Thu, 6 May 1999 07:47:34, Mike Darwin <> wrote:

>I have not posted to Cryonet in a long time, and probably will not post to
>it again for a long time, if ever. I am not a regular "reader" but I skim
>Cryonet with some frequency, usually reading no further than the subject
>line, or a line or two from a paragraph here or there.

I use the same method; most of the posts these days are not sufficiently
interesting to merit the time it takes to read them, but every now and then
a gem comes along, such as your message here.

It saddens me to hear the bitterness in your (Mike's) tone for the last
several years, because you're clearly spearheaded most of the actual
progress in cryosuspension techniques, and I would wish that this gave you
some satisfaction.  Instead, it appears to give you only resentment, that
the techniques you've developed have not been adopted more quickly.

You wrote:

>I will be leaving an active role as a service provider in cryonics as of 25
>June, 1999.

If this is only because of your dissatisfaction with the cryonics
community, then I'm very sorry to hear this.  If it's only because you plan
to dedicate more time to research, then it's no doubt a good thing for all
of us in the long run.

You also noted:

>The technology to vastly decrease both ischemic damage and cryoinjury now
>exists and is implementable in a cost-effective fashion. It will NOT be
>used on these people.

Well, cryonics providers?  Mike seems to have a very real point here.  I
would be very interested in hearing how the suspension protocols used by
the various providers have changed in the last five years.  And in
particular, to what extent 21CM's results have been incorporated, and why.

It may be there are real reasons the new results are not incorporated.
There may be conflicting results suggesting that they are not as effective
as Mike suggests (but I doubt it).  There may be legal problems using
technologies patented by 21CM.  They may be too expensive (a weak excuse).
Or it may simply be inertia -- nobody at the suspension providers have
taken the initiative to look into the new results carefully enough to
revise their protocols.

Whatever the reasons, let's hear it.  Don't sugar-coat it; be honest with
us.  What's the story?

|    Joseph J. Strout           Biocomputing -- The Salk Institute |
|                 http://www.strout.net              |

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11694