X-Message-Number: 15263
From: 
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:36:37 EST
Subject: more T & T

Delaying continuation of my vitrification series for a bit, I continue today 
with point-by-point notes on Platt's statements--not necessarily in order. 

1.  In # 15229 he writes:

"CI has no god-given right to adopt procedures that are protected by 
patents...Ettinger has been reminded of this repeatedly, but has always 
refused to mention it, preferring to imply that CI will adopt the results of 
other people's research at its own discretion."

I replied that it was malicious and ridiculous to accuse me of intending to 
pirate patents, since that would make no sense from either an ethical or 
financial point of view.

In # 15247 he answers:

"I certainly did NOT suggest that CI would pirate anything. All I said was 
that CI does not have the automatic right to use other people's work 
protected by patents."

I dare say the average reader will see here a fairly nice example of what I 
mean by "Plattitudes." Talk about disingenuous! Just read over these 
statements and make up your own mind. Check the original complete text if you 
like; I have left out some of the peripherals.

2. In # 15229 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.
 
He then goes on to say that a preliminary experiment with rabbit brains 
"demonstrated probable vitrification and the ability to rewarm the brains 
with little significant damage." He also accuses me of applying a "personal 
(unstated) definition of long term storage temperature."

Well, anyone with a copy of Alcor's latest issue of CRYONICS can read Fred 
Chamberlain's article for himself. Long term storage temperature for 
vitrification is repeated as being (as we have all seen many times) - 130 C 
to - 150 C. The brains mentioned were "vitrified" to - 80 C only, as Platt 
omits in this particular post.

Then, in # 15247 he mentions the - 80 C but says:

"Now, are you really going to use an arbitrary temperature target to suggest 
that this astonishing achievement isn't relevant?"

First, there is nothing arbitrary about the required long term storage 
temperature for vitrified specimens, and it is not my personal conclusion but 
that of (among others) the researchers themselves.

Second, I didn't say or imply that it wasn't relevant--only that it was 
incomplete and inconclusive (as well as unverified by other investigators). 
The researchers involved (21CM, INC and others) accomplished something new, 
and that's progress. But we have had progress for decades without reaching 
the goal. Any improvement is welcome, although in actual application there 
are many trade-offs. My statement above is accurate and relevant.

For a little bit of perspective on all this, newcomers especially may want to 
look back at some of my references and quotations in THE PROSPECT OF 
IMMORTALITY, either 1962 or 1964 version. It was progress, for example, when 
Rostand in 1948 and Polge et al in 1949 discovered that glycerol and other 
agents could improve the survival rates of frozen sperm. Today--more than a 
half century later--we STILL see papers in the professional journals 
investigating the best ways to cryopreserve spermatozoa! I also quoted a 
leading cryobiologist of the time, A.S. Parkes, as saying that "The 
preservation [in deep freeze] of whole organs for transplant may become 
possible [in the next decade, 1961-1971]. We know how premature that was. 
Greg Fahy and others have been working on vitrification of rabbit kidneys for 
at least ten years, still without complete success. 

And we are talking about human brains! I reiterate and emphasize that 
overblown claims are scientifically disreputable and are likely to boomerang 
in public relations.

Specifically, is the difference between - 80 C and - 130 C important? You bet 
your bottom dollar--it is an immense difference. Just for openers, we know 
that storage in liquid nitrogen results almost certainly in insignificant 
damage over centures, at least--but storage at dry ice temperature, - 79 C, 
shows significant deterioration of some kinds after years only, in a few 
cases after months. Not to mention the mere fact that obviously the work 
involved was to - 80, rather than lower, because they couldn't go lower and 
show the same results. Maybe they will soon--I hope so--but then again, 
judging from history, maybe not. You can say what you know, and you can say 
what you expect, but you shouldn't confuse the two.

3. Platt still hasn't responded to my question about Wakfer. Platt excoriates 
me, impugning my character in the most intemperate way, but is still mum 
about similar criticisms of Alcor's claims made by Paul Wakfer. So I repeat, 
to remind him and readers:

>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 -- 

Much more to come.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15263