X-Message-Number: 15267 Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:04:01 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Reply to Doug Skrecky Doug Skrecky wrote: > Just how big a chance for resuscitation are you assuming here? > Lets assume for the sake of argument that Alcor's cryogoop gives > double the chance of resuscitation that CI's gives. Sorry Doug, I can't share this assumption. From my perspective, it's a comparison between a probably zero chance, and a probably very small chance. We cannot derive a meaningful ratio from that. > debatible whether a toxic vitrification solution is less damaging than > a safer partial vitrification solution, such as CI currently uses. Can't agree with this either. You're comparing a procedure which, I believe, will enable the resuscitation of an organ in working order in the very near future, with a procedure which decimates structure to the point where the signal-to-noise ratio is so bad, I don't believe the signal is recoverable. > indicates toxicity MAY BE less important than ice damage. Certainly > a vitrification option would be nice to have. CI could achieve this > with no increase in its prices by substituting a more dehydrating > solution for 70% glycerol. An ethylene glycol/glycerol solution > would certainly do the job. An interesting suggestion. But the perfusion procedure would have to be significantly upgraded, merely to be sure that the perfusate would reach the cells that you are hoping to protect. Also, wouldn't you want to be sure that the patient reaches the lab as quickly as possible, having been kept as cool as possible (without actually freezing), with minimal blood clotting? Seems to me, this would require a remote standby team. > Most people in the general population are much more interested in > living to 75+ in good health. Seeing that neither of my own parents > made it to 75, this constitutes my own first order of business. And I sincerely hope you manage it. But even if you regard cryonics as pie-in-the-sky compared with the more realistic potential of life-extension supplements--aren't you concerned, at all, about accidents? Or is your cost/benefit analysis so grim, you feel that cryonics just isn't worth the money? I certainly felt that way for a long time, and maybe feel a bit that way now. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15267