X-Message-Number: 15483 From: "Jeff Grimes" <> Subject: Procedures that don't seem to make sense Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:30:29 +0000 Reading back through the Cryonet posts I missed last week, I am surprised (and somewhat confused) to find Douglas Skrecky stating that the 75% solution of glycerol used by Cryonics Institute is actually concentrated enough to vitrify! It is a vitrifying solution. So, Mr. Ettinger has denounced vitrification as destructive, toxic, and unnecessary, but his organization is in fact using a solution of glycerol that is strong enough to induce vitrification? When Mr. E wrote on his web site that "the cryoprotectants used in vitrification are toxic ... to the point of actually disintegrating cell membranes" did he realize that a) the solution used by his own organization is strong enough to vitrify, and b) his stuff is actually MORE toxic than the new vitrification solutions being developed? Perhaps he will say (as he has in the past), "We aren't interested in theory, we're just interested in results, and the results are on our web site." Well, okay, but, when you look at the magnified photos of brain tissue on the web site, first of all the reproduction is very muddy, and secondly, it SEEMS that there are blank areas where no brain cells exist anymore. Also, since the open-ended perfusion process may produce such uneven effects, I wonder if tests at the lab in Canada produced a big range of results, from bad to good, depending which piece of tissue was under the microscope. I wonder if the CI web site shows this full range, or includes only the better results. (It must have been tempting, for an organization concerned with PR, to include only the best pictures.) I wonder if this is why the people at CI do not want anyone to speak to the people at the lab in Canada, and have refused to give its name. One last point. David Pascal said that the "open ended" perfusion used at CI is better because it takes less time, and consequently the person doesn't suffer so much deterioration at relatively warm temperatures. BUT, of course, the relatively short time explains why the glycerol does not "equilibrate," as Mr. E has stated. In other words, the short time creates an uneven result. Also, when the perfusion is over, the patient is cooled VERY slowly, at less than 1 degree per hour. At Alcor, I am told that the rate is 10 degrees per hour, to get the temperature down as quickly as possible to minimize deterioration, or chemical damage from cryoprotectant. (All chemical reactions apparently occur more slowly at lower temperatures.) So, it seems that CI allows insufficient time for a patient to soak up cryoprotectant, but then prolongs the time in which a patient can be damaged during slow cooling. This makes no sense at all. Who devised the system that is used at Cryonics Institute, anyway? Was it a cryobiologist or other recognized scientist? How did CI decide to use 75% glycerol? None of these facts are on the web site, so far as I can find. Jeff Grimes. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15483