X-Message-Number: 13775
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: growth rate failure

In Message #13767 david pizer <> wrote:

>Why is the growth rate in cryonics such a failure in the last few years?
>(This may not apply to CI, I am more familiar with Alcor and CryoCare).
>1.	We can't demonstrate that it will work.
>2.	It costs too much.
>
    IMHO, CI's superior growth rate speaks for itself. Of the few people 
who continue to sign up for Cryonics, it is obvious that although CI
might offer a somewhat inferior product, its prices more than offset 
that. In short CI offers better value for money in the eyes of
most prospects.
    Alcor has to offer a substantially better product to enable its 
higher prices to be competitive. I think Mike Darwin needs to be 
consulted by Alcor.
    My own two cents on this topic is as follows: Alcor should consider 
switching to vitrification now, instead of staying with glycerol. It has 
been well documented that this solute is not suitable by itself for
vitrification. Its slow penetration into tissue blocks render
vitrification an impossibility when high molar glycerol is used. 
    Currently reversible cryopreservation of large tissue blocks is not 
possible due to cryoprotectant toxicity. However the medical literature 
contains numerous techniques for reducing toxicity. By switching to 
vitrification now, instead of waiting 25 years for it to be perfected, 
Alcor would benefit by being able to demonstrate essentially perfect EM 
pictures of tissue preserved using current techniques. The price for 
complete absence of ice crystal damage, is a small amount of molecular
denaturation damage. 
    I doubt Alcor will continue to exist for long, unless it makes some
changes to its operational procedures.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13775