X-Message-Number: 15545
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Hello?
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:06:43 +0000

Perhaps the sheer volume of messages on CryoNet caused my final few questions to
be overlooked. But they were quite relevant and important, I think:

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?

Re the ice blocker compound:

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? (Mr. Ettinger's most recent post re vitrification seems to miss the 
point, since he is quoting a web site from a company which has not, so far as I 
can tell, used the techniques developed at 21st Century Medicine. Also, as he 
well knows, freezing zygotes is not the same as freezing organs. Zygotes can be 
revived without nanotechnology, and have been, many times.)

I have pointed out, twice, or three times, that the CI 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. 

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?

Now, if CI does not wish to answer some or all of these questions, please let's 
have a conclusive statement saying so, and this will save a lot of time, because
I can stop asking the questions. On the other hand, if CI is willing to answer 
the questions, can we have an answer? 

Which is it going to be?

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15545