X-Message-Number: 15442
From: 
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:48 EST
Subject: Grimes again

With reference to Grimes' rant # 15435:

Most of what most readers might expect, with reference to information about 
CI procedures, has been on our web site for a long time, but somewhat 
scattered. We have decided to make it easier/clearer by adding a special page 
on current CI procedures. This may take a few more days, and it would *not* 
be easier or better to give a quick response on Cryonet. We will put a note 
on Cryonet when the new page is on the web.

As to the specifics of the last Grimes rant, I'll mostly just let the reader 
review the various posts, if he wishes, and use his own judgment. But I will 
note that Grimes now writes:

> I said CI makes claims about OTHER organizations which seem to be totally 
wrong, damaging, and not backed by any references.

How does he support this accusation? What have we said that is wrong--let 
alone "totally" wrong? If he or anyone can show us an error, we will 
acknowledge it and correct it. 
  
Our main "claim" about the current Alcor "vitrification" procedure is that it 
is untested, as far as we know--in addition to being secret in some of its 
parts, including the composition of the CPA. 

Anyone can just read Fred Chamberlain's article in the current issue of the 
Alcor magazine. He makes no claim that the procedure--as applied to Alcor's 
last two patients--has ever been tested and evaluated. In particular, I have 
seen no report of any animal brain having been vitrified by the Alcor 
procedure, rewarmed from liquid nitrogen temperature, and then evaluated as 
to integrity or viability by any criterion. Instead, we see references to 
scattered reports of experiments with different tissues and at different 
temperatures and with different CPAs.

Fred also says, "While the formula that will be used on cryopatients [has 
been used now, I think] is more concentrated than the one used in these 
experiments [thus presumably more toxic] there is still good reason to 
believe that partial viability of brain tissue will be retained during 
patient vitrification. There is no question that the viability will be higher 
than what is now being achieved with glycerol."

Well, there may be "no question" in his mind and those of his consultants, 
and these are good people doing their best. But the fact remains that we have 
seen no tests reported; and the matter of viability is not so simple.

Again, the 53% (now 66%) "viability" of rat brain slices by the K/Na 
criterion has been interpreted differently, in public, on Cryonet, by two 
people affiliated with the sponsoring organizations--one saying it means 66% 
on average over the cells, with the variance unknown or unreported; the other 
saying it means 66% of normal function for each and every cell, which seems 
hardly likely. Also, as I recall, extending the period of incubation did not 
result in self-repair and improvement of function.

Another little note--which I do not think I have mentioned previously--is 
that, according to my impression (anyone who knows, correct me if I'm wrong), 
the K/Na test only gives good results if very fresh specimens are used, with 
much worse results if there is post mortem delay. In the case of cryonics 
patients, there is almost always post mortem delay, and I believe more than a 
full day in the case of the last two Alcor patients.

But it is not at all clear--at least to me, and I have asked others for 
advice on this--how well the K/Na criterion correlates with other 
physiological criteria of function, such as gas exchange, glutamate uptake, 
and many others.

Further, it seems reasonable to me that one of the more important functional 
tests for neurons would be the electrical activity. After all, Suda's old 
experiments were deemed very important because his corticograms resembled 
normal ones to a fair extent. And I have mentioned that Pichugin did some 
work for CI a couple of years ago with rabbit brain pieces, using a glycerol 
CPA, and after rewarming from liquid nitrogen temperature he was able to show 
coordinated electrical activity in networks of neurons. The report appeared 
in The Immortalist, and will be added to our web site before long.

I submit, in light of all this, that there is indeed some question as to 
whether, or by how much, the current secret Alcor procedures, lacking 
evaluation reports, are superior to the use of glycerol CPAs.

Again, we don't claim the current CI methods are better than the current 
Alcor methods. We simply report that we use the method with the best 
independent evaluation, among those we have tested. We cannot yet test 
Alcor's, even on small specimens to begin with, because they are secret. When 
they become public, and if they are still relevant and show promise, we will 
test them and report.

Incidentally, Grimes has shifted his ground again on the matter of my 
mentioning Alcor. In some previous posts he was indignant that I mentioned 
Alcor, when all he wanted to talk about was CI. Now he says that readers may 
want to compare the details of procedure between organizations, in order to 
make a better-informed choice. Well, CI procedures have never been secret, 
and within a few days will be more conveniently available on a special page 
on our web site, while Alcor's current procedures remain secret in some 
important ways. As for Grimes, however--Alcor is welcome to him.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15442