X-Message-Number: 15749
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Vitrification etc.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:33:49 +0000

Mr. Ettinger says:

> I have repeatedly asked Alcor and consultants for 
> information, privately and publicly

This is the first time I've seen him mention this, at least 
in the time I have been reading CryoNet. If he did contact 
Alcor and ask for clarification, why didn't he say so 
before? Why didn't he tell us what they told him? Why did 
he make statements that were just guesses, and then draw 
damaging conclusions? Why did we have to wait a month for 
Hugh Hizon at Alcor to correct all the misunderstandings 
that Mr. Ettinger kept disseminating here?

For instance here are some Ettinger quotes. From CryoMessage 15249:

"Alcor claims excellent structural preservation for its 
current procedure (based on incomplete and indirect 
evidence), while admitting that only about half the cells 
survived one functional test, that test using a less 
concentrated solution."

If he had contacted Alcor they could have told him 
that "only about half the cells survived" was not a correct 
statement. The correction about the meaning of "viability" 
was made on CryoNet a couple of weeks later.

From CryoMessage 15301:

"Alcor's solution is probably more toxic than the solution 
tested by INC et al which showed 53% viability."

I believe this turned out to be incorrect as well.

Much worse statements were on the CI web site but have 
apparently been toned down, so I can't quote the originals 
any more. However the web site still contains a very long, 
carefully worded put-down that creates as much fear and 
doubt as possible by carefully worded scare sentences such 
as this:

"It is true that vitrification reduces ice damage. So does 
embalming, or pickling in alcohol, but we don't use those 
methods, because the overall damage is clearly greater."

Comparing vitrification to embalming or pickling in alcohol! Nice one, Bob!

"It takes no great insight to realize that the damage done 
to a human brain through those processes, or this new 
process, must be greater than what is indicated under the 
ideal lab conditions of INC's research."

Who says it must be greater? Bob says. Of course he doesn't 
quote anyone close to the work.

Mr. Ettinger goes on:

> But CI uses only procedures that we ourselves have 
> tested and that have been evaluated by unbiased 
> professionals. 

This is misleading, because CI has only "evaluated" its 
procedures relative to each other. In other words CI has 
tried three (?) different techniques that it invented 
itself, and asked an outside lab to say which is best. CI 
has not had its procedures evaluated relative to other 
people's procedures. I don't see that this kind of 
evaluation is worth much.

Lastly in response to my comment that CI hasn't bothered to 
try the $99 ice blocker:

> As repeatedly mentioned, our understanding from Alcor 
> consultants is that the 

> ice blocker is useful only in conjunction with the secret > and unavailable 
new CPA. 

This is simply NOT TRUE. If Mr. Ettinger believes this, 
then he hasn't bothered to read the 21st Century Medicine 
web site or the articles that were published. 

Now, listen carefully, Bob!

The ice blocker can be used to enhance the effects of 
glycerol. There are photos showing a glycerol solution that 
forms ice crystals without the ice blocker, and virtually 
no ice crystals with the ice blocker. Haven't you looked at 
these photos, Bob?

How can he claim to be an authority on this subject when he 
makes such basic errors? Once again I suggest he isn't 
really interested in this stuff, because he believes 
nanotechnology will sort it all out anyway.

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15749