X-Message-Number: 33166
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:52:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990

From: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=33165


> Brian, Brian, Brian, you ought to know better than to disagree with  
> Mike. Mike Darwin has long developed the annoying habit of always  
> being right.
> So anyone who disagrees with him is automatically always wrong.
> Quote from Ben Best in the November-December 2010 issue of Long  
> Life: "in about four months CI has taken-in six new patients. Five  
> of those patients were received on dry ice, only the sixth was  
> perfused."
> Any alleged increases in concentrations of cryoprotectants during  
> perfusion are moot, since 83% of CI's patients are currently not  
> being perfused. The blunt fact of the matter is that CI has devolved  
> into a Cryo-cemetery for mostly straight frozen corpses. Mike has  
> commented before on the divorce between Cryonics Science, which is  
> improving, and clinical practice, which is - as Mike has stated, is  
> deteriorating.

Your quote is very misleading, Doug, even though it
is factually correct that all but one of the patients CI
has received in 2010 were straight-frozen.

Four of the six patients that CI received in
2010 were post-mortem sign-ups, CI policy for post-mortem
sign-ups has been that they must be on dry ice for two
weeks while CI ensures that the funding and contracts
will be received in order, that the next-of-kin arranging
for the procedure has full legal authority, and that
there are not going to be other devastating problems.
CI is not encouraging post-mortem sign-ups, we advise
and advise and advise people to make arrangements
in advance, but too many people still only think about
cryonics post-mortem.

Just because CI has received so many post-mortem
sign-ups in 2010 does not necessarily mean that
this is a trend. I certainly hope that it is not.
Nor does it mean that the quality of patient care
has deteriorated for those who have funding and
contracts arranged in advance -- which is the most
misleading implication of your quote and statement.

The quality of care of the CI patient who was
perfused in 2010 is considerably greater than
the quality of care of a CI patient in 1990
who had funding and contracts in place at the
time of legal death. In 1990 a CI patient would
have been perfused through the carotids with
a single glycerol solution and cooled to
liquid nitrogen temperature manually. In 2010
the one CI patient was perfused with vitrification
solution in a stepped manner through both the
carotids and the vertebrals, and the patient
was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature by a
computer program that followed cooling protocol that
would be much less damaging than linear cooling.
That is greatly superior patient care than
would have been given in 1990.

Concerning the fact that post-mortem sign-ups
have been straight-frozen, it has been essential
that CI keep an arms-length from such patients
until we know that it is safe to accept them.
CI Director Marta Sandberg has been quite
concerned about the quality of care of such
patients, and to address this problem, CI
will now sell and ship glycerol solutions
for post-mortem sign-up cases where the
family is willing and able to arrange
perfusion by a local funeral director.
The formula for preparation is now posted on
the CI website for those who want to have
the solutions more quickly and less


   -- Ben Best, President, Cryonics Institute

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33166