X-Message-Number: 15337
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:01:01 -0500
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Reply to Ettinger Part 1 - # 15210

After an absence from CryoNet of nearly 4 months, I have decided to
return after been notified of the major distortions and obfuscations
which Robert Ettinger is once again perpetrating on a largely ill
informed, sometimes innocently and overly optimistic, but often gullible
readership by means of his masquerading as a well informed, patient,
paternalistic professor. I will confine myself to addressing Ettinger's
misinterpretation of the basis and results of current suspended
animation research, and particularly of my own previously published
remarks, rather than becoming involved in matters involving cryonics
organizations. My replies will be posted in installments to prevent
overload of Cryonet. After reading Ettinger's very first post in this
series on vitrification (#15210), I find that I must begin at the lowest
level where he starts right off with fundamental distortions.

>From: 
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:19:44 EST
>Subject: Vitrification
>
>VITRIFICATION FACTS AND PROSPECTS

>The word "vitrification" itself is probably fairly familiar to most readers. 
>It means formation of a glass-like state that is "solid" in the sense that it 
>does not flow or deform easily, but lacks the clear crystal structure 
>characteristic of most pure solids. Water solutions that are vitrified have 
>few or small water (ice) crystals.

While this might be acceptable as a correct definition of vitrification,
if the size of the ice crystals were well-defined instead of left vague
using such words are "few" and "small", together with Ettinger's next
paragraph it is quite incorrect right from the outset.
Although the glassy state of matter may be defined by its atomic scale
structure and thermodynamic properties (physical parameters independent
of its origin), for the purposes of application to cryonics, a vitrified
(glassy) biological state is fully defined as a configurationally frozen
liquid with embedded tissue that failed to crystallize upon cooling.
This means that the domains of water or other solute molecules
exhibiting repeating patterns (crystal structure) are limited to a few
nanometers at most (similar to that for water just above the freezing
point).

>ADVANTAGES of vitrification over freezing, for human cryopreservation, 
>include the fact that fewer or smaller ice crystals should result in less 
>mechanical damage by ice crystals, e.g. fewer tears in cell membranes by ice 
>crystals formed outside the cells. And if ice crystals tend not to form or 
>grow, there should be fewer regions where large ice crystals have disrupted 
>the connections between cells and tissues, or have exerted crushing forces. 

Again the use of the vague terms "fewer or smaller", "less mechanical
damage", "fewer tears", and even the use of the phrase "ice crystals" at
all when referring to vitrification, show either a gross
misunderstanding or an intentional distortion of the basic definitions
with which Ettinger is "setting up" all that follows.
In fact, with true vitrification there are *no* ice crystals and *no*
mechanical damage which can be reasonably described as "tearing". As the
tissue and cryoprotectant solution cool and solidify side by side, the
movements of each due to any mechanical distortions of cooling are
continuously "stretched" and "molded" together without any lesions
except possibly on the molecular scale (similar lesions almost certainly
occur in living biological systems and are quickly self-repaired by
simple closure/remolding).
Whether such true vitrification is being obtained by current Alcor
protocols, I am not in a position to say.

>(This does not mean that vitrification is the only method of minimizing ice 
>damage. Ice damage can also sometimes be reduced by removing water, by 
>reducing the freezing temperature, and by other means to limit the amount of 
>ice and the size and location of crystals.)

While the rest is true, the first line regarding vitrification
"minimizing ice damage" is incorrect since true vitrification totally
*eliminates* ice damage by totally eliminating all ice formation.

>DISADVANTAGES of vitrification include the need (in methods used so far, to 
>our knowledge) for very fast cooling,

This is not a characteristic of vitrification per se. It is a
characteristic of using current solutions which, because of their toxic
nature (although much less so than previous solutions at the same ice
forming concentrations), are used at less than fully vitrifiable
concentrations. The fast cooling is done to skirt the boundary of
crystal formation and toxicity both of which increase with time. In
fact, instead of terming fast cooling a "disadvantage" it would be
fairer and more accurate to say that the new CPA solutions are superior
because they *allow* fast cooling to be advantageously done, whereas for
some previous solutions fast cooling may have caused more damage because
of lack of equilibration (uneven distribution of CPA throughout the
tissue). Even if this was not the case, fast cooling (as with higher
storage temperature - see below) would be more fairly looked upon as a
general enhancement for all cryopreservation rather than as a specific
need of vitrification. Ongoing research will likely obviate the need for
such fast cooling as better (fully vitrifiable and minimally toxic)
solutions are discovered and defined. Hopefully, this will enable
cryopreservations to be done more cheaply and easily with less costly
equipment and procedures, while still achieving fully restorable
results. 

>for storage ideally at a temperature 
>(in the neighborhood of - 130 C) not easily maintained with great reliability 
>with equipment currently available, and for very fast and very uniform 
>rewarming to avoid "devitrification" (formation of ice crystals during 
>rewarming).

Again neither of these are related to vitrification per se. The first is
true for any cryopreservation of tissue. All current patients would be
more viable (have a better chance of restoration in the future) if they
had been stored at a higher temperature than that of liquid nitrogen. It
is well known that liquid nitrogen was only used as a matter of
convenience and to minimize storage costs. With respect to the major
damage previously being done to patients by freezing it was reasonably
deemed that the additional damage done by storage at that temperature
would be insignificant in comparison. However, the damage being done by
current methods is thought to be small enough that the additional damage
done by storage at liquid nitrogen temperature would not be
insignificant and that using a more optimal storage temperature is worth
the added cost and complexity.
The second (fast and uniform rewarming) is done for reasons similar to
the fast cooling explained above and it too will likely disappear as
better vitrification solutions appear.


-- Paul --

The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
A California charitable corporation funding research to
perfect cryopreservation of central nervous system tissue
for neuroscience research & medical repair of the brain.
Voice-mail: 416-968-6291  Fax: 559-663-5511

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15337