X-Message-Number: 15602
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Notice to Anyone Considering Cryonics Arrangements
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:08 +0000


Anyone considering cryonics arrangements with Cryonics Institute should be aware
of the following facts.


Since February 2nd, I have been asking these questions, which have received no 
response from the Cryonics Institute. This organization claims it welcomes free 
inquiry and has no secrets. Still it has refused to address these very basic 
issues. I have to wonder why CI cannot or will not provide any answers. I 
encourage anyone else who is considering CI to look for their own answers. 

---


1. Viaspan is widely used in medicine to preserve transplant organs temporarily.
Some cryonics organizations have used it after a person dies and is in transit 
to the cryonics facility. CI claims it is very concerned about good 
preservation, yet it does not use Viaspan. Why is this?


2. The CI web site makes "vitrification" sound like a dangerous process. In fact
it means freezing without ice damage. Also, according to Douglas Skrecky here 
on CryoNet, the glycerol that is used by CI is concentrated enough to create 
vitrification. Why does CI condemn its competitors for using vitrification, 
while CI is using a solution which is powerful enough to vitrify? Why does it 
create a deliberately misleading impression on its web site?


3. On CryoNet it has been established that CI uses a more concentrated solution 
of glycerol than has been used by any other organization, even though a 
concentrated solution is more likely to be toxic. Why is this?


4. Robert Ettinger, founder of CI, has agreed on CryoNet that the 75% by volume 
glycerol solution, used at CI, "does not equilibrate." I believe this means that
some parts of the brain are damaged by the high concentration, while it does 
not reach other parts, leaving them unprotected. One reason this happens may be 
that CI flows the solution straight through instead of recirculating it. Are 
these statements true and if so, why does CI use this very unsatisfactory 
technique?


5. Mr. Ettinger has said that the concentration of glycerol after perfusion is 
26 percent by weight. He has not said how this was measured, whether it was a 
sample at one point, or an average. Either way, I believe this is a lower 
concentration than other organizations achieve. Why does CI allow such a low 
level of protection?


6. Mr. Ettinger has claimed that a Canadian lab has duplicated CI results, and 
brain photos that they took are on the CI web site. Are these photos of brain 
tissue that was protected with 26 percent glycerol? Are the published photos the
best ones that were obtained, or do they show just average results? How many 
photos were actually taken? Could it be that the published photos were the best 
of the bunch, while others were much worse?


7. Am I right in thinking that the "empty" areas of the photos on the CI web 
site show areas that were cleared by ice that formed and then melted? 


8. CI has refused to name the Canadian lab that did the "verification." Is this 
because CI does not want any third party to contact the lab and ask questions 6 
and 7 above?


9. CI has said that its system of local morticians provides faster service. CI 
has criticized another organization for taking more than 30 hours to transport 
people from death bed to laboratory. CI has refused to say how many hours it 
took to move its own patients. Why will it not give this information? How long 
did it take the last four or five CI cases to move from death bed to laboratory?
Does CI even have this information?


If CI refuses to answer these questions, let it say so, and we will know that 
the pretense of openness is just that: A pretense. On the other hand, if CI is 
as open as it claims, why won't it give any answers?

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15602