X-Message-Number: 15346
From: 
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:17:04 EST
Subject: Wakfer 2

Referring now to Wakfer's #15340, taking issue with some of my statements in 
#15222:

1. Wakfer quotes part of what I said about toxicity and the K/Na ratio. Then 
he goes on with a long explanation of the K/Na ratio and its relevance. 
Nothing wrong with that, but I fail to see in it anything contradicting 
anything I said. 

What is interesting here, however, is that--contrary to what Greg Fahy said 
in the HSCP announcement--Wakfer says that 53% viability is a global 
assessment, NOT applying to individual cells. 

My original discussion of toxicity of the current Alcor procedure assumed 
just that--that the 53% was global or average, not necessarily applying to 
every individual cell. But then I was told that this was wrong, on the 
authority of an anonymous scientist, and later Greg said in the announcement 
published by Wakfer that this was wrong, and the 53% (now 66%) does indeed 
apply to each and every cell. I then responded mildly that Greg no doubt had 
some basis for his statement, although it seemed very queer from the 
standpoint of statistics, since in just about any population of any kind the 
variance is significant. If Greg has some way to assess the cells 
individually, no doubt we will hear the details eventually.

So as far as I can see, this whole first segment of Wakfer's post said 
nothing to contradict me, and in fact supported me in an opinion previously 
disputed.

2. I had noted that a 21CM patent bore the names of people with little or no 
previous experience or publications in cryobiology, including Wowk, 
Federowicz, and Harris--and that this was encouraging. This was a compliment 
to the 21CM people, not a derogation. Part of Wakfer's response was:

"2. Since when are the worth of scientific contributions to be judged by the 
worth or academic credentials of the contributor?"

Hey, that's MY point, not Wakfer's. It is Wakfer and Platt and their ilk who 
(when it suits their purpose) emphasize the question of credentials.

All right, actually, we all tend to do it to some extent. Certainly on our 
web site, with extensive quotations from Fahy, we emphasize his outstanding 
credentials. Certainly I will point out good credentials when it helps me. 
But I will NOT deny, and NEVER HAVE  denied, any point of fact or evidence on 
the basis of reputation or credentials.
On this point, I believe any neutral reader will give better marks to me than 
to Platt or Wakfer. 

3. I had complimented the young (relatively young, if you want to quibble) 
21CM people for advances not previously achieved by the whole cryobiology 
community. Wakfer now says the reason is that the community is small and has 
mainly not been interested in large tissue masses. 

First, this is denigrating the accomplishment, saying in effect that the 
achievement was significant only because previous efforts had been 
insignificant. It was I who acknowledged the talent, Wakfer who in effect 
deprecated it.

Actually, attempts to freeze or vitrify whole organs have NOT been lacking, 
except perhaps in proportion to the importance of the possible result. There 
are hundreds of papers on whole organ work, going back almost to the earliest 
days. Fahy himself and colleagues have been at it for decades--yet the glycol 
ether "break-through" did not come from established cryobiologists, including 
Fahy's team, but from the few and relatively young and relatively 
uncredentialed people on the 21CM team.

If Wakfer wants to try again, I don't mind at all. Nothing like a fight to 
draw a crowd. Whenever I am right, it will help cryonics, help CI, and tend 
to save lives. If I am wrong sometimes, which is a theoretical possibility, 
then we'll all learn something.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15346