X-Message-Number: 15530
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: The last few specifics, I hope
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:14:43 +0000

> 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 
> day.
> 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." 

Well, "nothing" maybe have been the wrong word. What I meant was, you told us 
nothing very useful. As I said before, "processed immediately" doesn't mean 
anything to me. Do you mean you had a mortician at the bedside, with the 
equipment, and perfused the person right there? That would be nice. But then how
long did it take to get to the lab? It's all so vague, and I am not being 
difficult, I am just trying to compare your statements with the statement that 
you made originally about Alcor--that their transit times were 30 or more hours.
I assume your times are less than that. How much less? Who knows! So, is your 
system really better? Until you tell us some numbers, we can only wonder.

Since it seems that the transit period is very important, because deterioration 
occurs ALL during that period, hours are important. As Kitty Antonik says, there
must be a time on the death certificate, and someone must know when the patient
turns up at the lab, if you keep any precise records at all. I'll telephone or 
email the lab myself if someone there has easy access to the records. But I 
would have thought you would know this info just from memory. "Oh, between 15 
and 20 hours," would be a fine answer as far as I'm concerned. But maybe you 
just don't like to deal in specifics.

> 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.

One of my correspondents pointed out there is room for confusion, because 
sometimes a mortician does your work at the lab, and sometimes he does it near 
where the patient dies, and I didn't say which situation I was talking about. 
Previously I had been asking about morticians out in the field, so that's what I
was referring to.

I am not suggesting "adding Viaspan to the mix" (presumably the glycerol mix). I
am suggesting the standard operating procedure at other organizations:

1. Blood washout in the remote location.
2. Put in the Viaspan at the remote location.

3. Move the patient, who is now protected with the most widely used organ 
preservation solution in the world, as far as I can tell. (Hardly needs to be 
4. Wash out the Viaspan and replace it with glycerol at the lab.

Wouldn't this make sense, to reduce the period in which the person experiences 
decay/deterioration in transit?

> 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.


> In my earlier notes re Grimes, I said we had not tried 21CM ice blockers yet 
> because, as I understood it, they only somewhat reduced the necessary 
> concentration of CPA, making it premature for us to try it. I should have 
> added that the ice blocker is intended for use with vitrification, not with 
> freezing.

This is odd to find myself apparently better informed than the man who invented 
cryonics, but the pictures I have seen of glycerol solutions, cooled with and 
without the ice blocker, clearly show that it inhibits ice crystals. I am told 
that these pictures appeared in Mr. Ettinger's own magazine! Isn't it worth 
using something that is cheap and has been shown to inhibit ice crystals, which 
cause so much damage?

Also I have pointed out, twice, or three times, that your solution of glycerol 
is powerful enough to create vitrification. You can't be against vitrification 
at the same time you are using a vitrification solution, can you? And in any 
case, why would you suggest that the ice blocker is a bad idea if it induces 
vitrification? Vitrification merely means lack of ice crystals. That sounds like
the best possible idea.

Now let me summarize (again) the questions that have not been answered.

1. Why does CI use glycerol that is so concentrated, it is more toxic than any 
protectant used elsewhere?

2. Is CI concerned that since the solution "does not equilibrate," some tissues 
are heavily loaded, causing toxic damage, while other tissues probably are not 
protected properly?

3. Which of these tissues was measured with 26 percent glycerol?

4. Which were examined at the Canadian lab?

5. How many pictures were taken in Canada, and did CI publish only the best?

6. Since 75 percent glycerol is a vitrification-strength protectant, why does 
the CI site still suggest that other organizations are the ones who vitrify, and
why does it suggest that the procedure is dangerous?

7. And my perennial favorite, rephrased: Does ANYONE at CI know, how long it 
took for the past four patients to move from deathbed to lab?

> One alternative, to have the local just do washout and then ship the patient 
> to Michigan for perfusion, is something on which we don't have any clear 
> data. Our sheep head work indicated that promptness of washout and perfusion 
> is more important, within limits, than some of the details of perfusion. Of 
> course, there are many variables, and the experience of our Michigan people 
> could in some cases offset any time advantage in having newly enlisted local 
> morticians do it. It's worth another look, and we'll figure out a priority 
> for it.

But you're not talking about Viaspan here, are you? The idea is not just to wash
out the blood and ship the person, but to wash out the blood and then add 
Viaspan and THEN ship the person. I am told this has been going on for more than
a decade, maybe two decades, at other organizations. So, surely you are aware 
of it.

> Message #15527
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:19:01 -0800 (PST)
> From: Doug Skrecky <>
> Subject: Vitrification enhancement by synthetic ice blocking agents
> Authors
>   Wowk B.  Leitl E.  Rasch CM.  Mesbah-Karimi N.  Harris SB.  Fahy GM.
> Institution
>   21st Century Medicine, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, USA. 
> Title
>   Vitrification enhancement by synthetic ice blocking agents.
> Source
>   Cryobiology.  40(3):228-36, 2000 May.
> Abstract
>   Small concentrations of the synthetic polymer polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) were
>   found to inhibit formation of ice in water/cryoprotectant solutions.

Thanks to Doug Skrecky for some REAL INFO! What a shock to suddenly see this in 

And thanks (today) for the "kinder gentler" and less personally confrontational 
style of the Robert Ettinger posts (to me anyway). This is noted and 

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15530