X-Message-Number: 15663
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: David Pascal
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:36:39 +0000

Here are some very brief points replying to David Pascal. I cannot
possibly answer everything in his message because it is so long. I 
don't think anyone likes really long posts, and I certainly do not 
have time to write them.

> Technically, it is not the water inside cells, but the water outside and
> between cells that causes the most damage in freezing. 

All right then, basically we agree that David's initial statement that 
blood causes most of the damage when it freezes was not accurate. (I'll 
skip the additional humor/mockery that David added.)

I suggested that when David compared the CI flow-through method for 
glycerol with recirculation of glycerol, his comparison left out so 
many factors, it didn't really mean much. He answered:

> A very good point, which was why I made it myself in reference to the
> CryoCare Report article.  

Then he complains about the CryoCare Report article. But if we stick to 
the topic, here, again, David seems to agree that my point was correct 
and his original statement was not accurate. This is an odd way for him 
to acknowledge errors, but, I guess none of us likes to admit errors.

Next I mentioned the issue of CI using very highly concentrated glycerol 
without working up gradually to this concentration. David ridicules me 
for this because he says CI stopped doing it. But as far as I can recall, 
the last I heard from David on this topic, he said CI was "considering" 
changing its system. If the change has actually been made, this is news 
to me and maybe to most people. I wonder why CI waited so long to start 
doing what others had been doing. But that's a separate issue.

Next I suggested that it would make sense to take more time circulating 
glycerol and less time during the cooling process, if CI is concerned 
about the time in which a person can deteriorate. David answers:

> A good point.  Perhaps it would.

So, he seems to agree that there may be a valid issue here. 

But next David suggests CI likes to take a long time for cooling because 
this reduces "fracturing." I have received email on this subject from a 
researcher. (When I started posting on CryoNet, I was surprised to 
receive many emails from a variety of people, including some CI members 
who were annoyed with me, a man in England who provided some very 
helpful advice, and two researchers who wanted to educate me, and 
encouraged me to express their points of view. Currently I am still 
receiving about two emails every three days, from various people. Almost 
all of them, including the CI members, ask not to be quoted by name. 
hen I asked my initial questions here, I was amazed to get all these 
personal responses.)

The person who wrote to me claims that the initial cooling rate has no 
effect on fracturing. He says that probably the reason CI people may not 
fracture would be that they don't absorb enough glycerol to turn into a 
solid state where fracturing happens. 

If this is true, then CI is wasting its time by cooling people slowly.
 
But even if CI is right about fracturing, I would have thought it would 
still be worth the risk, if you can reduce toxic chemical reactions by 
speeding the cooling process. Surely, fracturing must be easier to 
repair in the future than the results of toxic reactions. (I'll skip 
David's ridicule on this subject. It seems a fairly serious subject 
to me.)

Next I suggested that the brief glycerol treatment provided by CI might 
be inadequate since Mr. Ettinger has said it "does not equilibrate." 
David seems to argue that this is deliberate: CI uses a high 
concentration for a short time, to get a relatively low concentration 
into the cells. But I suggested that "does not equilibrate" seems to 
mean the results will be uneven, with some areas better protected than 
others. I have asked repeatedly if this is occurring. If it is, surely 
this is a problem and cannot be deliberate.

David then goes back to the same justification I have seen many times 
now. He says CI does what it does because it has tested its procedures 
and they work. So, we have an organization that uses a system that it 
invented itself, apparently without any help from qualified people. 
Then it claims that qualified people have verified the results. 

This seems the wrong way around. Why not use outside expert help to 
design the system in the first place? If you just invent two possible 
ways of working, and ask someone to choose which one is better, you 
automatically limit how much you can learn.

Normally in any research paper you see a list of references at the end, 
showing the foundation for the methods and ideas that have been 
developed. But you never see this kind of thing on the CI web page. 
They talk as if all other research doesn't exist (or, they claim it 
isn't relevant or the results are not trustworthy). I cannot understand 
why any organization would insulate itself in this way. In an 
experimental field it would make sense to learn from the work of others, 
and build on it, instead of always sneering at it or simply ignoring it.

David then points out that I am wrong when I said that no other 
organization seems to use such a high concentration of glycerol. 
He says the Alcor web page specifies the same final concentration of 
75% mentioned by Robert Ettinger. If this is the case then, yes, I was 
wrong, assuming that the percent value at Alcor is by volume, which was 
the way that Robert Ettinger expressed it. I have to wonder why no one 
corrected this misstatement before, but the lack of participation in 
this list by people at Alcor is another mystery that I don't have time 
to investigate (yet!).

David finishes up:

> When professional journalists and investigators say things
> like that, when independent scientists and labs say this procedure proved
> better than that one, when memberships in one organization breaks records
> while others stagnate -- yes, it impresses me.  I think that CI is
> arguably the best and most significant cryonics organization in
> existence.  And the day is coming when that will be unarguable.

I still think David's real talent is in PR. But perhaps he would agree 
with me on this point too.

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15663