X-Message-Number: 15236
From: 
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:30:54 EST
Subject: addendum, Plattitudes

For those unable or unwilling to find and gauge the facts for themselves, it 
might be worth while to note that I am not the only one advocating caution in 
accepting Alcor's current vitrification enthusiasm uncritically.

As veteran readers know, Paul Wakfer is not friendly to me or to CI, and is a 
strong advocate of vitrification, and he  has been close to the research and 
the organizations involved, but a month or two back he posted the following:
-------------------
Zeb Haradon wrote: "Bryan Hall" <> wrote in message 
news: http://www.alcor.org/eventsb.html#Update I 
got a notice in the mail from them regarding this, it's great news. It 
basically says they are now going to be vitrifying neuro-suspendees. Since 
vitrification will not cause any freezing damage, and the only issue is the 
toxicity of the vitrification chemicals, this means that nanotechnology will 
(probably) not be required for revival. I hope this means research will begin 
soon on realistic revival scenerios. [End quotation]

[Wakfer now]: 

I think that your statements go too far in their interpretation of the 
benefits of vitrification. 

First, being able to vitrify by cooling does not necessarily mean that 
specimens can remain ice-free or otherwise damage free during rewarming. 

Second, we have always been able to vitrify, but this was not done because 
the toxicities involved (even some disintegration of cell membranes) were 
clearly not tolerable to restoring life. The current vitrification procedure 
does still not leave the tissue viable, but the toxicity is low enough that a 
decision has been made by someone (perhaps partly for promotional reasons) 
that toxicity damage is "better" than ice damage. Since we currently have no 
method of restoring from either kind of damage, this decision is at best a 
"guesstimate" rather than a decision based on scientific research. To take an 
extreme example, long-term preservation in embalming fluid has always been 
possible (and without ice damage!), but no one ever proposed it because no 
one ever thought that life could ever be restored from that state, or even 
that the mind was fully captured and preserved. Thus, until we actually 
finish the necessary research to restore to life a person who is preserved in 
a manner which allows no deterioration over a long term, I think that it is 
premature to say what kind of technology will or will not be necessary for 
that restoration. 

-- Paul -- 
-------------------------
Well, Platt probably read this at the time, but did not attempt to refute it, 
and did not accuse Wakfer of moral turpitude. 

And still again: CI's concern is that readers check ALL facts, arguments, and 
points of view. There is more available--including opposition or competing 
viewpoints--on our web site than on any other. 

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15236