X-Message-Number: 12475
From: 
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:03:30 EDT
Subject: commentsDarwinEtc

Some comments on Darwin's latest post, Cryonet #12472, which I will try to 
keep non-inflammatory:
 
First, in the interests of lightening things up, I'll allow myself one small 
"gotcha"-Mike's note that

>I would conservatively estimate that Chris [Rasch]has single-handledly put 
in over >10,000 hours each year, for the past 2 years to evaluate these 
agents 

I don't know Mr. Rasch, and don't doubt that he is devoted and competent and 
works heavy overtime, but if he works 10,000 hours a year he must have cloned 
himself, since 24 x 365 is less than 10,000. 

Now I don't want to get into a dissing contest with Mike, and will ignore 
much that might well be contested, but a few remarks are probably required, 
in order at least partially to orient newcomers and those with short memories.

After heavily emphasizing both the talents and sacrifices of himself and his 
colleagues, Mike says

>This not to denigrate the fine efforts put forth by many on this list who
>have worked hard and long for advancing cryobiology or cryonics now, or in
>the past.

Yes it is. The disclaimer above is pro forma. One of the main points of his 
post (and many previous) is that most of us are woefully lacking both in 
brains and merit. In yesterday's post Mike wrote:

>As a result of all this, I have become convinced that the only thing that
>will get the impact of the progress *already made* through the thick skulls
>of cryonicists is when they hear about the revival and cure of the first
>*human* cancer patient placed into suspended animation at -120 C or below.

Again, he berates us for failing to recognize the magnitude of the recent 
advances, or to act on that recognition. Yet again I note that much 
information is still not available to us, and that the initiative for making 
marketing or licensing proposals lies with the owners of the technology, not 
the prospective customers. CI--and all the other organizations, I'm 
sure--want to make all options available to our members, but we can't do it 
unilaterally. 21CM owns the patents, and ABS has been formed to do the 
marketing. We are waiting to hear from them. (Well, not just waiting; we also 
will be testing the new cryoprotectants to the extent we are able.)

As a further reiterated note, the quotation (second paragraph above) sounds 
like a cryonicist talking (if only a cryonicist in the context of 21CM 
technology). So is you is or is you aint?

As for Visser issues, I'll mostly leave those to the Vissers to deal with if 
they choose. Here I'll merely point to one line in Mike's post yesterday, 
referring to DMF as an "industrial solvent," with obvious pejorative intent. 
DMSO is also an "industrial solvent" and so, for that matter, is water. So 
what? Nor did Mike accurately summarize the literature on DMF in cryobiology. 
Check for yourselves; e.g. DMF was reported by Nash to provide "complete 
protection" for red blood cells. See CRYOBIOLOGY (the book by Meryman, 1966). 
(No, I am not claiming that DMF is likely to prove important in cryobiology.)

As to the relations between CI and other organizations, and the reasons 
therefore, I'll restrict myself to the following.

Yes, we (CI) did decide that we should not accept patients from 
BioPreservation, but I will not review the reasons now because that would 
merely inflame tempers.
In any case, BP is now out of the picture.

Mike himself--according to some of his publications and opinions of some who 
have had considerable contact with him--is also out of the cryonics picture 
in most respects. Among other things, he expressed the opinion that the 
chances of cryopreservation patients are near zero--and that was AFTER the 
discovery and testing of the new cryoprotectants by Wowk, Darwin, Russell and 
Harris.

I don't claim that Mike can't have it both ways. He can. He can claim a large 
share of credit for important advances and still assert that the chance of 
revival of patients cryopreserved even by 21CM methods is near zero. And of 
course he is certainly entitled to downplay the importance of his personal 
survival if he wishes. But the stance should be clear, without changing the 
emphasis to suit the occasion.

With regard to American Cryonics Society (ACS), the current policy, as 
recorded in a contract approved by CI and ACS, is that ACS may use any 
initial service provider it chooses (which would include BP if it were still 
in that business) but that the patient must be in the sole control of ACS at 
time of delivery to CI, so that CI need have no dealings with any 
intermediary other than a funeral director.

As to CryoCare patients, Ben Best (now President of CC) attended the CI 
annual meeting on Sep.19, explained the CC situation, and we are in the 
process of discussing suitable ways for CC members to choose some or all of 
CI services. I anticipate a formal offer fairly soon. 

About CPR: We continue to use and advocate "thumpers" when feasible and 
appropriate, because (1) continued delivery of some oxygen is better than 
none, (2) it also helps distribute the anticoagulant and (3) it improves the 
cooling rate a bit.

Finally, a philosophical note. It may often be a good idea (for internal and 
external effect) to reward those who make "sacrifices" for us, or who help us 
in any way. At the same time, let no one pretend that his PRIMARY motivation 
is anything other than to please himself or make his own life better at the 
bottom line. What Mike and his colleagues do is basically their own choice 
for their own benefit. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12475