X-Message-Number: 15503 From: "Jeff Grimes" <> Subject: Still trying to get simple answers Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:27:47 +0000 I am still trying to get a number. Just one number! But you'd think I was asking for the crown jewels. Of course in his usual style Mr. E claims he gave it to me already: > 2. When he asked for the delay times for the last four CI patients, I only > responded with information about the last three, because that was what I > remembered clearly. No you did NOT answer my question. You made a vague statement, which told me nothing. I am really getting tired of this charade. Here again is what I have asked (and this is the FOURTH time): You and Pascal have provided the time, IN HOURS, that it took the last four Alcor patients to move from deathbed to laboratory. You have NOT provided this information, IN HOURS, for the last four CI cases. Why not? Don't you know how long it took? If so, why not save time and just say so? As for your problem "accessing the archives," if no one at CI is aware of this basic information without checking "the archives," well, I find this a bit hard to believe. > The fact that CI has had a much more stable history does NOT mean that our > directors rubber-stamp my opinions. Our directors think for themselves, and I > have been overruled more than once, in fact frequently. But our people > generally do not have inflated egos or sand-paper personalities, and we don't > need that. But, I wasn't asking to be one of your directors. I was interested in the services you offer to members. If you're saying you prefer to avoid any member who questions how you perform procedures, I have to wonder what kind of organization this really is. Also I am beginning to understand how CI has ended up with procedures that seem to make no sense (as explained in my post yesterday). Apparently no one has ever questioned them! In any research I would have thought you would welcome someone asking why this works, or if something else could be better. This is how PROGRESS is made. If you have filtered out this kind of feedback, I can see why nothing much has changed, and people may be doing things that are not necessarily the best way to go about it. > > Do other organizations use the glycerol before the person is moved to the > > cryo lab, or is this a feature which is unique to CI? > > Yes, CPA perfusion by funeral directors is unique to CI. Except in rare > cases, it must be arranged well ahead of time. There, you see how easy that was? I asked a short question, you gave a short answer, and that was it! It took both of us about 5 minutes! That's all I wanted originally, and it was all I expected. But instead I am still getting these highly personal and insulting messages telling me I am a trouble maker, suggesting I am not sincere, suggesting I should go away and join another organization, and on and on. You have wasted at least 90 percent of your time in this way, when you could have just given me these one-or-two-sentence answers. That was ALL I WANTED. > There isn't any "standard organ cryopreservation solution"--organs for > transplant are not cryopreserved. Viaspan, according to people I know who do transplants, is a standard organ preservation solution. I apologize for referring to it as a "cryopreservation" solution by mistake. But since I mentioned Viaspan, I think you knew what I was talking about (although David Pascal seemed as if he had never heard of it). > Anyway, washout and perfusion are done in > the same operation, in sequence, so there is no place for an intermediate use > of Viaspan or something similar. Yes I know, you already explained that your mortician puts in the glycerol. What I'm saying is this: Why doesn't your mortician use Viaspan, to protect the organs (such as the brain) while the patient is being transported to the lab? Then put in the glycerol at the lab. The way you are doing things, you put in the glycerol (which you have said yourself, is toxic) before moving the person. So, the CI person is sitting there in a box, presumably still ABOVE 0 degrees, and toxic reactions are occurring all the way from the mortician's office to the lab. We don't know how long this takes, because you won't tell us. But it must be at least 12 hours. Why don't you use Viaspan to protect the person during this period, if you are so concerned about toxic reactions? > Remarkable! In view of his remarks, he ought to be VERY interested in > Alcor--surely interested enough to send them an email for direct information > on their UK presence and capabilities. If Alcor doesn't serve people in the UK, why should I be VERY interested in them? Your person Pascal already told me that Alcor has abandoned its UK operation. Is that not true? He made it seem that CI is the only real option for people in England. Did he mislead me about this? > Baloney. Every answer to him will only elicit argumentation and demands for > more and more details. This is not the case. Where you have given me a specific answer, I have not challenged it in any way. You told me, for instance, that there is an Alcor team that goes out (on demand), consisting of two people, a mortician and someone else. I have not mentioned this topic again. Your answer was clear and simple. If you would force yourself either a) to give clear and simple answers, or b) to tell me that you WON'T give ANY answer at all, I'll drop all the other issues too. But you don't do either of these things! You give half an answer, or a vague answer (like, "We responded immediately" instead of telling me how many hours it really took to go from A to B). Naturally this is very frustrating. It's like asking a politician to make a policy statement. It shouldn't be this way. You are providing a service, and so far as I can tell, it is not especially complicated, by medical standards. I ask "Why don't you use Viaspan?" and I expect something like, "We considered it but decided not to because it costs too much" or "it has a limited shelf life" or something like that. But you don't say that. You waffle and try to avoid the issue. That's why I keep asking questions. Often, they are the same questions that didn't get answered before. Once I get an answer, I am quite satisfied. > One purpose of our web site is to allow inquirers to > find what they need without separate individual correspondence. Yes, and I have made it clear what I found on the web site, and what I didn't find. I have only asked about things that I didn't find. > We do indeed welcome questions and suggestions. But we respond as seems > appropriate, using our own judgment, not necessarily as the writer demands. Let me parse this sentence. You WELCOME questions, but you will only respond in your own peculiar way? Yes, this is exactly the problem! > it has been shown that some of our web segments led to misunderstandings. > These have been changed, or are in the process. A day or two ago, I quoted the specific words you used that I suggested were so damaging to your competitors, and so incorrect, they could cause legal action. Now you say the "web segments led to misunderstandings." Funny! I didn't see any misunderstanding. I saw statements that were WRONG. And now you say "These have been changed, or are in the process." Another wonderful evasion! The statements had NOT been changed, when I last looked, so that part of the statement is misleading. "are in the process" can of course mean anything at all. A year from now, you may still be "in the process." > On the > whole, I think most readers will agree that our site is the most open and > informative of all. This is probably true. But the site also contained some highly inaccurate and damaging statements about your competitors. > We have already tried some of the recently reported compounds, and will do > more. The ice blockers by themselves have limited importance, but will be > included in some of our upcoming experiments. Oh no! More waffle! Which "recently reported compounds" did you try? As usual, you are not specific. So far as I know, from their web site, 21st Century offers only ONE compound, which is an ice blocker. Did you try it or not? If you didn't, why have you made such negative statements about it? And if you didn't try it, what did you try? 21st Century claims that their ice blocker (available to anyone for $99 a bottle) will enhance the ability of cryoprotectants to stop ice crystals forming. You can use it tomorrow, with your usual "vitrification mix" of glycerol. You can send it to your mystery lab in Canada and get them to try it. But noooo, you just say it has "limited importance." Well, I would say that if it works, it must be very important indeed. Ice is the whole problem, isn't it? So why not take a SIMPLE CHEAP step to reduce the problem? > Then there is a torrent of drivel, > Perhaps a new high for both pretentiousness and drivel. Mr. E did not say this to me, but I include it as a reminder of his unfailing politeness! This from Paul Wakfer: > Actually, this is not so. Many of the most experienced and knowledgeable > cryonics "experts" are either too burned out and disgusted with CryoNet > (some even with cryonics as currently practiced) or are too busy with > productive (even cryonics enhancing) activities to bother with much of > what appears on CryoNet. Well, if this is true, it explains a lot. It suggests I have been asking questions of the wrong people. And the right people are not available to answer questions. How unfortunate for anyone who comes to this field hoping to get a rational explanation of how it works. No wonder cryonics remains such a minority interest. The CI people have a "noblesse oblige" attitude (look it up) and always welcome questions, but won't necessarily answer them, and have difficulty explaining the scientific basis for some of their procedures. The Alcor people are too busy to get involved here. And people who run the other organizations might as well be frozen, to judge by their signs of life, or lack of it. Welcome to cryonics! Jeff Grimes. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15503