X-Message-Number: 15576
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: George Smith etc.
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:15:59 +0000

Thanks to George Smith for his detailed analysis of the sign-or-not-to-sign 
dilemma. George's argument seems to come down to this: If something MIGHT save 
your life, and it doesn't cost too much, and you can't prove that it WON'T save 
your life, what have you got to lose?

What bothers me is that George's argument can be extended rather a long way. 
Suppose I am trying to choose between a cryonics organization and a Christian 
church, using George's system. The cryonics organization says that future 
science probably will be able to undo all kinds of damage. I find this hard to 
believe, but I can't prove that it is impossible. The church says that Jesus was
resurrected, which proves that God exists; and moreover Jesus said many things 
that tell us we will be resurrected too, if we do what we are supposed to do. I 
find this hard to believe--but I can't prove that this is impossible, either! So
according to George's rule of thumb ("Do anything that may work, if you can't 
prove it is impossible") I could join the church. In fact since the church is 
cheaper than cryonics, it looks like a better bet.

I'm willing to bet that George actually would prefer cryonics to the church. So 
it seems to me he actually has some additional logic affecting his decision. 
Maybe, he trusts science more than vague description of something that happened 
2000 years ago. Aha! So do I! But once you agree that science is involved, you 
should approach it in an appropriate way. Analytically, to figure out if it is 
GOOD science or MAYBE science or BAD science.

And this is what I thought I was trying to do.

As I have said before, I would like to know if CI is going to answer the 
following questions. If CI does not wish to answer these questions, all they 
have to do is say so, and I will drop the whole subject.

If they are willing to answer the questions, will they please do so, to end the 
thread that way.

I want to know why CI doesn't use Viaspan. There must be a simple reason. Why 
will no one address this?

I want to know why CI has not bothered to pay $99 for a sample of the ice 
blocker developer by 21 Century Medicine.

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 

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?

I get the impression that George Smith has been asked to deal with me now, 
because Robert Ettinger doesn't feel inclined to trouble himself any further. 
Unfortunately, George has little interest in science issues.

Consequently my questions remain unanswered.

If someone will answer the questions, that will satisfy me, thank you very much.

If CI will say, definitely, that it WON'T answer, that will also settle the 

But if CI is just going to do a Buddha imitation and sit there inscrutably, I 
will have to keep asking the same questions again and again.

Jeff Smith.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15576