X-Message-Number: 15685
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:15:12 -0500
Subject: All Mysteries Revealed
From:
Recently Mr. Jeff Grimes has been posting and posting and re-posting a
set of nine questions to CI. They were (in my opinion) rude in tone,
accusing CI of various sorts of concealment and perfidy, and contained
the threat that they would be sent repeatedly till Mr. Grimes got his
answers. I didn't respond, partly because the questions were for the
most part so lame that I didn't think they merited a response, and also
because I don't think insults and threats should be rewarded -- reward
bad behavior, and it gets repeated.
To my pleasant surprise, however, Mr. Grimes not only has refrained from
sending his list for the past few days, but managed to respond to
something else I wrote in a fairly polite and mature manner. That sort
of thing does deserve to be rewarded. So, now that things have cooled
off to a grown-up level, I'd like to reveal all the Dark Mysteries that
CI has been too chicken to confess these past few weeks. (And too, I was
touched to the core by one of his statements: "My full list of questions
is repeated below. Once again, it is very simple to stop me from posting
here again. Either answer the questions, or admit that you will NEVER
answer these questions, from anyone."
Never posting here again -- . *Sigh*. As with late-night romantic
encounters, you know it's a lie, but the offer is just too tempting to
resist...)
Mr. Grimes wrote (and rewrote and rewrote and rewrote):
>>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. <<
Anyone considering cryonics arrangements with Cryonics Institute should
be aware of the following fact: Mr. Jeff Grimes has been emailing
questions to CI, its officials, and its members, not since February 2nd
but since January 9th, 2001. Robert Ettinger, John de Rivaz, George
Smith, and I have been answering them, both privately and publicly since
then, for well over a month. Check the back issues. Check also the
Niagara of megabytes of info on the CI web site at www.cryonics.org, or
any search engine, where much of Mr. Grimes' questions are (as I will
show) already answered; to wit:
>> 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?
CI does not use Viaspan as a transplant solution because because Viaspan,
though endorsed by the FDA for selected abdominal organs, has no such
approval for neural tissue or other tissues. We are not aware of any
journal studies as to its effectiveness in that area, much less of the
effects when trace elements of the solution are placed in long-term
liquid nitrogen storage. The organization offering it (DuPont Merck
Pharmaceuticals) has undertaken no active research & development of the
product in over ten years, hence it is hardly in step with current
advances in transplantation science. But most particularly we avoid it
because of controversial results stemming from its use. 'Off label
application (ie heart and lung transplants) of Viaspan beyond its
FDA-cleared, intended use (liver, kidneys and pancreas) has yielded often
controversial and poor results,' notes a report at published at
www.cryomedical.com. 'Product stability concerns have become an issue
with DuPont Merck Pharmaceuticals,' it continues, adding that these
considerations have caused 'some clinical groups to propose transplant
method modifications that will reduce the utilization rate of Viaspan'.
Beyond these considerations, there are for cryonics organizations the
invariable problems of added time lost (and ischemic damage endured) by
adding yet more additional solutions, there's cost, there's the potential
time and legal difficulties involved in authorizing and using
prescription medication, etc. CI is currently looking into more
up-to-date sorts of non-prescription solutions such as the Hypothermosol
series, which is said to have superceded Viaspan, but CI does not apply
medications to its patients that it hasn't tested and that hasn't been
reviewed and approved for such purposes by independent labs. And we have
to get the current tests done before we can get to new ones.
Why has CI not made this startling revelation before? Because simply by
typing 'Viaspan' into Google brings this information up as the fifth hit,
and anyone wanting to verify it doesn't have to take lying evil
untrustworthy CI's word for it. (Indeed one intelligent gentleman
emailing me did just that, not wasting a second of Cryonet's time in the
process. Bravo, sir.) Rather than typing seven simple letters and
clicking 'enter', however, Mr. Grimes prefered to post his question - to
CI and CI only, on Cryonet - nearly every day for over two weeks. Why
doesn't he just get easily available public information? Beats me. It's
not hard to do. Couldn't he just ask the list generally, 'Why Viaspan?
Are there any drawbacks to it?' Nope. Why anyone would want to spend
*two weeks* coercing CI officials alone into getting something you can
get in ten seconds -- well, it stumps me.
>> 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? <<
Perhaps we should quote from the deliberately misleading web site in
question, which viciously dumps on vitrification in the following terms:
"we are not saying that vitrification as such is bad or that research
into it is inappropriate. On the contrary. We admire the energy and
effort that many people at various organizations have invested in the new
research. We fully agree that much more research and development is
needed. Indeed we are ourselves conducting ongoing new research, with
fresh reports from time to time on this web site. And, of course, we are
glad to point people to the article [Alcor President Fred Chamberlain's
piece] and let them make their own judgments: the article in question is
available at http://www.alcor.org/eventsb.html," adding, "Let us be
clear, though: CI believes that patients who undergo vitrification (like
those who don't) should be recoverable by future technology, that
research into the technique should definitely continue, and that such an
option should be made available to members who want it."
Moreover, in the neurovitrification section on the Comparing page at
www.cryonics.org, we've included a section from an Alcor consultant
explicitly explaining why he feels the new procedure is worthwhile.
Pretty misleading stuff, huh? A person might almost believe
vitrification was a good thing. How shocking!
As for 75% percent glycerol being a 'vitrifiable solution'. Any liquid
can in theory be vitrified -- Brayley in 1860 suggested vitrifying with
water, which is not generally considered a cryoprotectant. I suppose one
can vitrify with Coca-cola, strychnine, and cat urine; I do not believe
that they qualify as cryoprotectants, and I don't believe any
organization uses them as vitrification solutions. This is because, you
see, though any solution can be vitrified in theory, only specifically
designed solutions are even beginning to be developed that can do so in
actual practice without damage to tissue much less entire organs like the
brain. 75% Glycerine is not one of them: you just can't get acceptable
results with the stuff. I wish we could.
>> 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?
<<
I've answered this already, but it's still worth examining, in that it's
an excellent example of why CI people have not bothered to answer it. It
is first of all, factually incorrect. 'On CryoNet it has been
established that CI uses a more concentrated solution of glycerol than
has been used by any other organization.' By whom? Jeff's 'mystery
correspondents'? If (again) a person can expend the effort to type
www.alcor.org (a mighty effort, I admit), one will notice that Alcor's
web site states in a description of their procedures: "After the
surgical access is completed, a cold (about 5oC, just above freezing)
perfusate is recirculated through the patient while the cryoprotective
agent (glycerol) is gradually increased from a 4% glycerol solution to
75%..." This used to be standard for all patients; I would imagine it's
now standard for whole-body patients, though I've heard Alcor has yet
another CPA (secret, of course, but that's OK - all secrets are fine,
provided they're not CI's).
Why hasn't CI pointed this out? Because -- again -- it's right there!
Anybody wanting to make the simplest and most elementary background check
on his facts prior to spreading them all over the web can find it inside
half a minute! Hell, CI's web site even *points* you to it. But
investigation is not how Mr. Grimes goes about things. He hears
something bad about CI, he assumes that if it's bad then it must be true
(and, of course, must be instantly shared with the world), and so he
posts his inaccurate statements on Cryonet fourteen times in a row.
Those who care about getting their facts right read his errors, shudder,
and move on. As for his email friends who have been 'sending him
information', apparently they aren't bothering to send him any that's
accurate. (To put it a la Grimes: 'Who are these mysterious unnamed
informants? Why are they concealing their identities? Why won't Mr.
Grimes tell us? What are they all hiding from us? Good Lord -- do I
sense a 'COVER-UP'?)
To truly savor the really exquisite flaws in the above question, though,
you have to read the next two, to wit:
>> 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? <<
What CI is being accused of, you see, is using 'a more concentrated
solution of glycerol than has been used by any other organization', which
(apart from being factually incorrect) is very very bad, and then of
using 'a lower concentration than other organizations,' which (apart from
being incorrect) is very very bad too.
Forgive me, but - uh -- does no one see a little contradiction here? We
may be accused of using too much; or we can be accused of using too
little; but we can't be accused of doing both at the same time! You
can't be accused of starving a man to death at the same time that you're
accused of stuffing cake down his throat till he bursts. You can be
guilty of one, but not both.
Now the solution to Mr. Grimes' conundrum is, I believe, stated on the CI
web site somewhere, but of course no one ever bothers to read the thing
except to find fresh rocks to toss at the man responsible for founding
the entire cryonics movement and every career in it. But I will
summarize it: if you use high concentrations and equilibrate, you get
more cryoprotectant in, but you also get more toxicity, and you get more
damage to brain cells by having to keep the brain at higher temperatures
for the additional time needed to equilibration to occur. Conversely, if
you use lower concentrations and do not equilibrate, you reduce toxicity
and can cool more quickly, but you have less overall cryoprotectant,
which is not great either. (I note in passing that the Alcor web site
states in regard to cryoprotective perfusion with 75% glycerol solution:
"The end result is replacement of 60% or more of the patient's body water
with glycerol." I don't know what they're using now, but even when they
were doing 75% glycerol, it clearly did not mean that all the moisture in
and around every last cell in a patient's body was perfectly permeated
with 75% glycerol. There is more permeation, not absolutely perfect
permeation, and more even distribution, not absolutely perfect
distribution.)
Do the positives of equilibration balance the negatives? It is customary
in cryonics circles to argue this question from theory, ie, to go: 'study
A in Journal B says more cryoprotectant, more protection - let's do it!'
or 'study C in Journal D says less cryoprotectant, less toxicity - let's
do it!'
CI doesn't believe in theory. It runs actual tests, locates independent
research labs to look at the results, sends them blind samples and says:
which of these gives us the best results? The best results on our tests
at that time said that 26% sample got the best results. (And the 26% is
averaged, of course.) This would seem to have a common-sense
plausibility, does it not? A bit less toxicity from less cryoprotectant,
plus an added assist from less time at higher temperatures, resulting in
a sort of median-range result. Just sounding plausible isn't enough, of
course. One has to test. CI did, and those were the results. That
doesn't mean that CI doesn't re-test or run variations or doesn't try
other solutions, which is what it's doing now, and that 26% may very well
be changed. I may add that I personally am not greatly moved by whether a
sampling is estimated at 26% or 42% or 60%. What I care about is having
an independent PhD look at various treatment samples and say, 'This
treatment got the best results'.
>> 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? <<
Ah, where does one begin? Mr. Grimes is trying to say is that he does
not know how to interpret electron micrographs. He has nothing to be
ashamed of there. Few people do. (I don't claim to.) That is why CI
sends them out to laboratory professionals to take photos and give us
their assessments. It is no secret at all that even cryobiological
professionals themselves can disagree heartily in interpreting them. Not
only are there differences interpreting artifacts; problems in fixation,
staining, handling, can result in judgment calls. Notes an article at
the Kodak web site (at www.kodak.com for you research groupies) "The
granular structure of any photographic material exposed to electrons is
much coarser than that produced when the same material is exposed to
light, electrons interact with photographic emulsions in a substantially
different manner than do photons. Random fluctuations of electrons in the
beam are normal. These fluctuations result in a characteristic grainy
appearance in the processed photographic negative."
Having neglected to check his facts on Viaspan or at www.alcor.org or
Merck or BioLife or anywhere else, I suppose I write in vain, but if Mr.
Grimes who wishes to learn more about electron-micrograph interpretation
should check out the Microscopy Links at
http://www.mih.unibas.ch/Homepages/bernd_f/emlinks.htm. I add that
(personally) looking into them has suggested to me that publishing photos
at all is really more misleading than helpful. Laymen simply can't
interpret them substantively. Case in point: Jeff Grimes. He asks CI
- who else? - what '"empty" areas' are. Why? I guess because he doesn't
know. (But he *does* want to know how many pictures of this mystery
stuff were taken. It's like not being able to read Japanese, but
demanding to see 100 pages of it because that will make you so much more
informed.)
To reply: the areas he is taking about are (I think) ice. Ice forms
during freezing and it distorts the surrounding tissue, lacerating
membranes and so on. But doesn't totally vaporize it. It pushes tissue
aside, rather. 'Empty areas' suggests that whole sections of the cell
(or whole groups of cells, as Mr. Grimes has suggested elsewhere) are
absolutely obliterated. That's not the case. Ice holes are not to be
casually courted, but people who have studied the problem - I especially
recommend Dr. Ralph Merkle's Molecular Repair Of The Brain and his
Cryonics and Cryptography essay at www.merkle.com, one of the greatest
cryonics sites of all - suggest that that sort of tearing damage should
certainly be within the range of repair. (And Dr. Eric Drexler's
interview in the 19:2 and 19:3 issue of Cryonics magazine is so very good
on this point that, of course, nobody ever scanned it and put it on their
web site, which I would do in a second, if I had the permission. Read it
if you can. Drexler concludes simply (in early 1998!): 'I just fail to
see how the present freezing procedures, when done reasonably promptly,
are very destructive in any way that important from the point of view of
future medicine. They're like tearing and crumpling, not like burning
and blowing away the ash.")
To get back to CI's Dark Mysteries, however: don't you love this one:
"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?"
CI did *not* say that a Canadian lab 'duplicated' its results. CI
perfused a number of sheep brains in various ways and sent the samples to
a Canadian lab for analysis. CI did *not* say that the photos are on the
CI site. The site with photos from the Canadian lab *says*: "One of the
first specimens was sent to the testing lab to see how they would
perform, and the one chosen was out of curiosity-it used one of the
methoxylated compounds reported by 21st Century Medicine as a potential
break-through in vitrification. ("Vitrified"or "glassy" specimens are
"solid" but without actual ice crystals of noticeable size, with a
potential for reduced damage). I emphasize that the procedure used in
this preliminary test was not that used by 21CM. It was a simple
perfusion of a sheep head with 20% 2-methoxyethanol, after a washout out
with Ringer's. The head was frozen, not vitrified. With these caveats
firmly in mind, following are some brief excerpts from the report,
including a couple of the micrograms (or micrographs if you prefer).
Everything below was written or photographed by the testing lab
professionals, not by CI personnel."
Clear? Simple? Direct? Yes - if you bother to read it. 20%
2-methoxyethanol, not 26% glycerol. But not only do people not read the
text, they can actually look at a photo with subheads saying
'Photomicrogram 39' and ask: "How many photos were taken?". Sir, the
reason we receive pictures labeled 'Photomicrogram 39' is that 38 other
photomicrograms precede it.
>> 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? <<
I cannot speak for CI, but I certainly hope to God that the answer is
yes. To me one of the worst and most disastrous aspects of cryonics
practice is that the people doing it work for organizations in business
competition who for the most part do the tests and make the evaluations
themselves. Note, please, that I do not say or accuse anyone of
falsifying data or doing incompetent work. I simply say that having work
reviewed by qualified independent professionals reduces the possibility
of isolation, secrecy, and bias, even unconscious bias, and is something
well worth doing.
But it's very hard to do, because in the US, cryonics long ago received a
very bad, very sensationalized treatment by the press. The Society of
Cryobiology, smarting, issued the following statement: "the Board of
Governors may refuse membership to applicants, or suspend or expel
members (including both individual and institutional members), whose
conduct is deemed detrimental to the Society, including applicants or
members engaged in or who promote any practice or application which the
Board of Governors deems incompatible with the ethical and scientific
standards of the Society or as misrepresenting the science of
cryobiology, including any practice or application of freezing deceased
persons in the anticipation of their reanimation..."
Needless to say, a scientific body that formally persecutes someone
undertaking scientific studies is doing science and itself a disservice,
and no one ever got remotely close to getting the boot under this ruling.
But finding American labs to do work for us in this field is close to
impossible. Rather than give up the fight for objective scientific
review, CI looked for places overseas, first at the largest
cryobiological institute in the world at Kharkov, then in places like
Portugal, and finally managed to find qualified PhD-bearing faculty
research scientists at Canadian universities willing to take on the task.
And we *need* such scientists if we are to get any sort of objective
reading on the validity of our procedures; which is why we *don't* want
them harassed or badgered by people. Particularly since it would have no
result except cost us needed help.
I mean, imagine that you're a faculty PhD and you get a email out of
nowhere saying: "Hey! I smell a cover-up! 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? 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?" I imagine the PhD in question would either just kill the post,
or respond by saying, "I can't legally discuss my client's private report
results with strangers. Sorry." If that unfortunate doctor then got a
solid month of repetitive emailings and found his competence questioned
and his private responses spread over the web, I don't know what he'd do.
Cut off relations with CI, and suggest other labs avoid us? A move like
that would set CI back, and set CI's patients' chances back, and
therefore I hope to hell that CI keeps those names as private as
possible.
Now the average reader may be asking: ah, but how then do I know that
these independent qualified degreed researchers are independent,
qualified, and degreed at all, then? Perhaps evil CI is merely sending
snapshots of Hungarian goulash to Moto Photo and pulling our legs. Well,
Reader, if you believe that, you have to believe not merely that I (who
helped locate these labs) am a liar, but that Robert Ettinger is a liar,
and that all nine of CI's directors - all of whom get the reports from
the labs and nearly a third of whom are in the legal profession - are
also liars. The CI staff know. I believe that members of at least two
other competing organizations know. This is over a dozen people!
Doesn't the conspiracy theory get thin at some point? Nonetheless: if
anyone out really thinks that these labs are not what they say we are, I
would be more than willing to pick some non-CI person who is generally
conceded to be of good character, and let him or her in on the Big
Mystery, so doubters can be reassured.
But - does it make any sense at all to do so? I mean - Robert Ettinger's
own mother is a patient at CI. His first wife and now his second are
patients. His children are signed up to undergo CI suspension
procedures. He himself is signed up to undergo them. All nine directors
are signed up to undergo them. *I'm* signed up to undergo them. Is it
even remotely plausible that all these people are deliberately and
actively conspiring to apply second-rate procedures - to their families,
to their children, to themselves? It beggars all common sense to think
so. Their lives and their family's lives are at stake here. How can
anyone think they would not be striving for the very best possible care?
>> 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? <<
Ah, this is my very favorite. Let me spell out the implied charges first:
(a) CI is not handing out this information because its last four or five
patients have taken several centuries to reach our facilities and been
reduced to King Tut-like dust in the interim; (b) we are covering it up
because our times are so mind-bogglingly worse than Alcor's that we
prefer having Mr. Grimes lash our backs repeatedly to taking our medicine
and confessing our incompetence; although (c) to cover up the times, we'd
have to know the times in the first place; so, in the interest of tossing
the entire kitchen sink at CI, CI also faces the somewhat contradictory
sub-charge that it doesn't even know when patients die or when they
arrive.
To answer the last first: the information is a matter of public record.
When a patient dies in a hospital or under hospice care, or is found
dead, the care-givers and/or police are required by law to record the
time of death. Equally, it is the practice among funeral directors (who
operate under state-certified guidelines) to record the moment they
receive the deceased, and of course flight times are available to anyone
with a phone who wants to make a snap estimate. So the information is
there, obviously. Indeed the information is so much there than even Fred
Chamberlain of Alcor feels able to mention it publicly - not accurately,
maybe, but publicly.
Is CI not replying so that no one will notice, or is it not replying
because our times are so bad? Either charge is silly. How can no one
notice with Jeff Grimes issuing 'Warnings' and 'Notices' yowling like
Pavarotti about it day after day for over two weeks? As for not being
willing to admit to lengthy times: when Fred Chamberlain graciously
spread the word that 'an organization that uses funeral directors' had
left a patient in water ice for three weeks, Robert Ettinger did not say
what he could have said: that this was flatly untrue. He gave a
detailed response in which he explained that a person had died without
any legal and financial arrangements and CI had been called. CI did not
leave the patient untreated in water ice but had a funeral director
perform a full perfusion there within hours, and immediately began
cooling the patient to dry ice temperature. It could not relocate the
patient to CI facilities for the final descent to liquid nitrogen
temperature till the family finally and legally agreed to release the
patient to CI. That decision took three weeks, which was regrettable;
but it was not CI's decision; CI cannot illegally take deceased people's
bodies away from their families.
Robert Ettinger could have 'covered that up'. He didn't. He also could
have come up with a few gruesome Alcor counter-examples. He didn't - and
I might add that he didn't, fully expecting people like Mr. Grimes to
second Mr. Chamberlain's remarks with nonsense like the following:
>> I didn't say anything about water ice. I don't know anything about
that, and I don't care about that. I said that Chamberlain claimed a CI
"patient" had actually taken three weeks to move from deathbed to
laboratory. I asked if this was true. Mr. Ettinger now says: Yes, it's
true, it took about that long. (Read his post carefully. The admission is
in there.) So, we now have a number for ONE of the past four CI cases. If
we can get the hours (or days!) for the other three cases, I can drop
another question from my list. <<
Doesn't know and doesn't care, eh? Robert Ettinger -- who knew and cared
-- led CI in giving this patient the best treatment possible under the
bitter circumstances, and - years later - neither denied it nor covered
it up but elaborated the details quite openly.
And why shouldn't he? People aren't fools. They know full well that
cryonics offers them a chance, not a guarantee. If you're lost at sea,
if you burnt to ashes in a fire, if you die in the woods and aren't found
for weeks, there's nothing a cryonics organization can do. People
understand this. They don't ask cryonics organizations to perform
miracles, all they ask is that the organization do the best it can to
provide treatment as quickly as it can. If circumstances make that
impossible, all the organization has to do is say so, and describe it.
Such cases are, after all, inevitable, and every organization suffers
them, and everybody who considers it seriously knows it.
And as for the main charge - the actual times - let me explain why it's
completely pointless. Take an example. Say Bill Gates becomes a
cryonicist and turns Harvard Medical School into a super-CI equipped with
squads of doctors and fleets of jets. Bill's organization signs up a
family of six among its members, and they all go boating and drown in a
storm. No bodies are ever found. Jeff Grimes, justly revolted by the
cryonics scene, starts up his own one-man competing organization in his
garage, using spare cans of antifreeze as cryoprotectant, with no funeral
directors or traveling team at all. A family of six sign up with him and
die in a car crash directly outside his door. He leaps out at once, can
in hand.
What would this comparison tell you? That a cryonics organization with
no experience, traveling team, or morticians reaches patients in three
seconds; whereas Harvard Medical School aided by Boeing blows it 100% of
the time. That would be both factually true; and utterly false.
Again, people are not fools. It is senseless to argue from the last very
few incidents that the next incidents must be exactly the same. If
anything is certain, they won't be the same. And yet it would not be
senseless to argue that an organization like CI must, in the very nature
of things, be able to arrive earlier, which can make a significant
difference. Is it not, as I said, simply obvious that a funeral director
living within a few miles of you can reach you more quickly than a
traveling team which has to assemble four (or two if you use CI's) people
and equipment and travel cross-country? Is it not simply a given that a
funeral director in Mr. Grimes' town in England can reach him more
quickly than a quartet of people from Scottsdale, Arizona? And that
this likelihood - which even Mr. Grimes concedes as 'logical' - is
independent of whether Alcor's last patient expired in a weeping Fred
Chamberlain's very arms whereas CI's last was swallowed by a whale and
never heard from again?
Add to this the fact that even equal times can be deceiving. In the case
above, for instance, the "patient" was not left to decay at room
temperature for three weeks: the patient was given a full perfusion and
cooled down to -79 C. That was possible because CI and only CI trains
people - funeral directors - to do the procedure if necessary in the
field. Had the patient been released to CI in six days and reached CI
facilities on the seventh, the conditions might not have been markedly
worse than a conventional suspension. Suppose another organization had
a patient die in a car accident, get mangled horribly, be dissected in an
autopsy, and finally arrive at the facilities three and a half days
later. Well! That lucky soul arrived at the facility twice as fast! A
hundred times worse off, but twice as fast.
Why mention actual times at all then? Because one doesn't want to argue
purely from abstractions; real-life proof is nice, and concrete data
illustrates it better for more people. And in fact recent times have
borne out what Mr. Grimes concedes to be 'logical'. Alcor reported that
it arrived at a patient's side in 38 hours in one case, 30 in the other,
and that they arrived 'more promptly than' 30 hours in one case and 'more
than' 30 hours in the next. None of these replies is exact to the
minute, and none of them (as I recall, now that I think about it) specify
that they specifically stretch from deathbed to laboratory, as Mr. Grimes
insist CI's do. I assume they do, and if they don't, I would still not
be terribly upset; I have faith that Alcor is trying to do the best they
can for their patients. What reason in the world would anyone have for
not bringing a patient in quickly? Is it fun - is it even legal -- to
sit out in the field with someone who's just died?
Now, Reader, I didn't happen to know off the top of my head how long it
took each of the last four ('or five') people to get to CI. When a
patient arrives at a hospital for an operation, do the people involved
call the Hospital President (much less peripheral help like me) and tell
him the moment they walked in the door and the moment they walked out?
No, of course not. Nonetheless it is so much of a non-secret that even I
can pop emails around and work out an estimate; so poke around and
calculate I did, and -- (drum roll: may I have the secret envelope for
the concluding Ninth Question, Fred?) - the answer is - 'deathbed to
laboratory' - 'IN HOURS' -- more than eight hours in one case; less than
ten hours in another; one hour (a hospice patient very near CI
facilities); and over six hours; although that patient did not die in bed
and was unfortunately not found for more than a day, so 'deathbed' is not
exactly applicable; sadly, thirty-one hours might be a closer estimate
there.
And now that the Ultimate Mystery has been revealed, ladies and gentleman
-- what of it? What do we know now that we didn't know before? Nothing.
All the above reveals is that funeral directors who are close to you can
get to you faster than people who aren't; that plane flights take as long
for the dead as for the living; and that bad luck can lengthen the time
it takes to get somewhere; that there are no guarantees. Did anyone in
the world not know this before?
To conclude:
>> 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? <<
Because -- apart from the fact that I just did -- the questions are
factually incorrect, self-contradictory, more easily answered elsewhere
even for the person asking them, and irrelevant.
And also - please listen closely, everyone - because people at CI are
*busy*: I'm not saying that to brush anyone off. It's just a fact. CI
is a working and rapidly expanding business; it has 37 patients to take
care of; it had another patient just days ago; it's got eight people
signing up last week alone -- that's more than one a day! ABC World News,
the BBC, the Odyssey Channel, Detroit TV, now Japan and Italy are coming
down to film us. We've got continuing research to do, we're setting up a
new lab, we have email and inquiries coming in from all over the world,
and a web site to expand and update, and -- all this is a lot of work!
All of it takes time. Maybe Jeff Grimes can afford to send three or four
emails a day to Cryonet, but people at CI have got things to *do*.
*Despite* that, Robert Ettinger, I, John de Rivaz, George Smith, have
been answering his questions for over a month! If he's asked so much as
*one single question* of anyone on this list *other* than CI, I've missed
it. What makes us so privileged? I have no idea. But for some reason
Mr. Grimes feels that CI people can just drop all their work and their
private lives and give Mr. Grimes an online tutorial in things he can
find out in most cases merely by clicking his mouse. CI has bent over
backwards responding to this man's questions, and no other organization
has. And the result? We get beat up for secrecy! It's absurd!
Yes: there is secrecy in the world of cryonics. You know why? Because
secrecy works! Look at 'neurovitrification'. If you don't reveal the
CPA you're using, if you don't run any tests of whole mammalian brains
under real-life conditions, if you don't get your tests reviewed by any
independent labs - then you're cutting-edge science in all its glory.
Champions of truth like Mr. Grimes will not only not ask questions but
actually tell others to *stop* asking questions! Such is my regard for
many of the people developing it that I'm willing to believe on the bare
word of honorable men that what they've got may be worth something after
all, and be worth supporting. But who in the world can *also* support a
system of no disclosures, no whole-brain tests, and no reviews? Yet when
CI makes the composition of its solutions completely public, tests them
on actual brains, and sends them to independent doctors and scientists to
evaluate, and publishes the results - they call you a bum! People like
Mr. Grimes issue 'Warnings' and 'Notices' about the 'hidden information'
that's right there in front of everyone's nose, and, sure enough, people
who give every other indication of being grown-ups swallow it whole and
go 'Good job, Jeff!'
Jeff: I don't know who these mystery people are that you say are sending
you email, as you put it, 'to educate me, and encourage me to express
their points of view', but look back over this post and then go
double-check the sites and information on it, and when you do, sit down
and realize that what they have been feeding you is a lot of baloney.
You're not getting the truth. You're getting half-truths, and personal
interpretations passed off as truths, and either simple ignorance or
plain old downright lies. And there's no reason in the world why you
have to be the guy that helps them spread it around. If they have any
'points of view to express', they can stop crawling around in the dark
and make them in the light of day - like CI does.
David Pascal
www.cryonics.org
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15685