X-Message-Number: 15234
From: 
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:40:33 EST
Subject: Plattitudes

For the sake especially of newcomers, I suppose I should respond to Charles 
Platt's latest (stuff). Although I am not yet immortal, to prove I am already 
superhuman I'll resist the temptation to use the ample material to respond ad 
hominem and just stick to the specific points mentioned.

First, he quotes me:

> As previously noted, the current Alcor "vitrification" procedures seem to be
> based on guesswork, there having been (to my knowledge) not a single
> mammalian brain reported anywhere, formally or informally, as vitrified to
> long term storage temperature and then rewarmed and studied.

and then he accuses me of ignoring the partial and indirect evidence of 
efficacy published in CRYONICS and elsewhere.  

Ignore it? Far from it. Many times--as he acknowledges in part--I have 
referred readers to Alcor's and other publications, and THE IMMORTALIST has 
published
related material, and our web site has links to Alcor's site (not 
reciprocated). But my stated purpose in the current series of vitrification 
pieces was to highlight weaknesses in the over-optimistic view, so naturally 
I did not give equal time to that view, and I need not apologize for that. (I 
did, however, gratuitously mention one possible advantage of vitrification 
that its main proponents have not stated, as far as I recall--that it might 
reduce chemical damage as well as ice crystal damage, if it could be brought 
to fulfillment.)

Further, in at least one of my vitrification pieces, I did specifically 
mention the CRYONICS article by Fred Chamberlain, with a microphoto of a 
brain vitrified at - 80 C and then rewarmed. Again, my statements were 
completely accurate and did not ignore the evidence for the optimists. 

I also said that "guesswork" is not necessarily a criticism, since we are 
always compelled to base our decisions in part on best guesses.

Then Platt refers to my "personal, unstated definition" of long term storage 
temperature. Wrong again. The preferred long term storage temperature of 
vitrified organs has been repeatedly stated by leading professionals as in 
the neighborhood of - 130 C or lower. We know that - 80 C is not cold enough, 
and results from - 80 C cannot be assumed to hold for lower temperatures. It 
was Fred's article in CRYONICS that might have been misleading to readers who 
didn't notice that the good looking microphoto was from - 80 C and not the 
lower temperatures required for cryonics.

Platt then says I have belittled the work of certain scientists over the last 
two decades. Not true, unless it is "belittling" to point out facts that need 
attention. 

Then he says I once sent him a letter saying that simpler procedures might be 
safer than sophisticated procedures, since we cannot know whether we are 
hindering or helping future scientists who will try to recover the patients. 
Although I have made my share of mistakes in the past, I don't believe I said 
any such thing. Let's see the letter; I don't find it. The closest I can 
imagine I came to saying something like that could conceivably have been the 
observation that if nothing is added to the patient and nothing taken away, 
then in that sense there would have been the least disturbance. But we (CI) 
do not advocate straight freezing as first choice. Our own results and those 
of others show clear and large improvement histologically when certain 
cryoprotectants are used, glycerol specifically.

Platt next complains that my mention of RF heating was a red herring. No. I 
did point out the claim or expectation that fast rewarming by circulation of 
inert fluids might substitute for RF heating. There could have been some 
slight confusion, since each of my pieces had a focus on a particular patent 
or paper. I could not revisit every single point in every one of my posts, 
without undue length and tedium. 

It remains true that not a single instance of rewaming of a mammalian brain 
from - 130 C or lower has ever been reported, formally or informally, to my 
knowledge, whether by RF or any other method.

Next, Platt complains that I was misleading in reference to CI's trials of 
alkoxylated compounds. All I will bother to say here is that I don't believe 
he was really confused by the report on our web site. And I said specifically 
that our trial was NOT an imitation of those reported by 21CM, and involved 
freezing, not vitrification.

Next, Platt complains about my mention of the 21CM employees who were the 
inventors on 21CM's vitrification patent. My mention of them was clearly 
complimentary, not derogatory. I did not know that Russell and Harris are no 
longer employed by 21CM; I am not in their circle of confidantes. Russell and 
Harris were 21CM employes at the time of the patent, I believe--not that this 
is relevant to anything in particular.

As to any implied criticism of "one of the world's most respected 
cryobiologists" at 21CM, this is ridiculous. I didn't mention him at all, and 
his name was not on the patent.

Then Platt suggests that CI plans to pirate patents. Malicious and absurd. 
Even if we had no ethics at all, our lawyers would never allow us to 
substitute the monstrous costs of litigation for the modest costs of 
licensing. 

I have said repeatedly that, when convinced by the evidence of efficacy, we 
will offer all available options to CI members at the best possible prices; 
and I have said repeatedly that this could be direct or indirect, through our 
own services or through subcontracting, possible subcontractors previously 
named being BioTransport and 21CM or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates.

About a month ago I wrote again, formally, to 21CM and to BioTransport (care 
of Alcor) to ask about the prospective licensing and/or subcontracting 
situation. There has been no response from BioTransport or Alcor. But 21CM 
responded in a friendly and helpful way, and that door remains open for the 
future.

And finally I suggest again to readers that they get their information about 
CI and its work and views directly from our web site--which also has links to 
Alcor and all the other cryonics organizations.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15234