X-Message-Number: 15515
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:51:41 EST
Subject: Grimes notes 0201

A few more notes:

1. Grimes asked for delay times, in hours, for CI's last 4 patients. I 
replied, from memory, that of the last three, two died at home under hospice 
care and were processed immediately, while one was not found for more than a 

Grimes then said, "No you did NOT answer my question. You made a vague 
statement, which told me nothing." 

I leave it to the reader as to whether my answer told "nothing." If further 
clarification is needed, "immediately" means that cool-down was started 
within a couple of minutes. 

Yes, I could ask HQ to look in the files for precise information on all 
patients, but I am not going to do that. If anyone thinks that is being 
unreasonable or secretive, so be it. 

2. Grimes:

>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.

I think he is suggesting that, in those cases where we have the local 
mortician do washout and perfusion at the local funeral home, Viaspan should 
be added to the mix (prior to shipment to Michigan). The answer is that 
Viaspan has not been tested as part of a perfusate--not by us, at any rate. 
We only use what we have tested.

3. Grimes:

>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?

No, David didn't mislead Grimes, and he didn't tell Grimes exactly what the 
statement above implies--but isn't Grimes the guy who wants documented 
details from the horse's mouth? Why would he take David as an authority on 
policies of Alcor? Grimes is clearly showing a decided double standard, not 
showing nearly as much interest in getting the facts straight on Alcor as in 
criticizing CI.

4. Grimes:

>> it has been shown that some of our web segments led to misunderstandings. 
>> These have been changed, or are in the process. 

> I saw statements that were WRONG. And now you say "These have been changed, 
or are in the process." Another wonderful evasion!

No, he did not see statements that were wrong, but a couple of statements 
that could have been unintentionally misleading. The main one concerned 
toxicity of CPAs, where very high toxicity was in historical context. That 
has been changed, and a further re-write is in the making. Once more, 
although much more discussion is called for, these are the main facts as 
relates to current procedures:

Current Alcor solutions are secret, but Alcor consultants tell us, and we 
believe them, that they are much less toxic (by the criteria used) than the 
previous Alcor standard. We're not sure how they compare with the current CI 
procedures, which now involve a 4-stage stepping of glycerol and a lower 
final concentration of glycerol than the previous Alcor procedure. 

As to the overall effectiveness of the current Alcor procedure, the Alcor 
consultants believe there is good theoretical reason, and indirect 
experimental evidence, to support a likelihood of vitrification with the 
current Alcor procedure, at least under ideal conditions. That's fine. But we 
await (1) anybody's report on results after animal work duplicating Alcor's 
current procedure, after rewarming from liquid nitrogen; (2) somebody else's 
verification, and especially (3)our own duplication and verification, 
beginning with small samples.

5. Grimes:

>Which "recently reported compounds" did you try? 

Methoxylated compounds. The ice blocker literature only claimed a small 
percentage of reduction of needed concentration of CPA, so there seemed no 
rush to try that.

6. Grimes:

>> Then there is a torrent of drivel, 
>> Perhaps a new high for both pretentiousness and drivel. [Referring to some 
Wakfer remarks.]

> Mr. E did not say this to me, but I include it as a reminder of his 
unfailing politeness!

If any reader is interested enough to review all the back-and-forth, I think 
he will find that I have shown irritation only after provocation. Wakfer has 
used terms like "fraud," "deliberately misleading," "obfuscation," etc. and 
Grimes is not far behind in that department. Politeness is one thing; turning 
the other cheek is something else.

As far as the overall atmosphere is concerned, I don't think it's a case of 
Bolsheviks and Menshiviks. The squabbles on Cryonet are not representative. 
Most members don't even subscribe to Cryonet, and those that do mostly remain 
silent, just as few newspaper readers write letters to the editor. Maybe I'm 
spending too much time on it too, even though, as I said, I write fast. 

Anyway, for the most part, in the real world, members and leaders of the 
various organizations basically respect each other, and each other's right to 
make their own conscientious decisions. And certainly none of the 
leaders/activists (in the nonprofit organizations at least) is getting any 
significant recompense in either cash or anything negotiable. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15515