X-Message-Number: 33167
References: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:26:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <>
Subject: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990

----- Original Message ----
> Message  #33165
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:55:22 -0800 (PST)
> From: 
> Subject: Cryopreservation  since 1990
> >   Mike Darwin wrote:
> >> Finally, the  quality of cryopreservation most patients are now receiving
> >> is  dismal and has, on average, deteriorated since 1990.
> >
> > Brian Wowk  wrote:
> > statement is not supportable.  The single greatest change  that has
> > occurred in cryonics since the 1990s is the switch to  higher
> > concentrations of cryoprotectants, which has a dramatic effect  on
> > structural preservation
> >
> 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 
>were recieved 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.

Here's the full quote: "The Cryonics Institute now has 101 patients. After
Curtis Henderson, our 95th patient, CI did not have a new patient for nearly
a full year. But 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.
Four of the dry ice patients were post-mortem signups, and the fifth was
signed-up only shortly before her death, while she was in the Intensive
Care Unit (ICU) of a hospital."

In other words, 83% of the patients in that sample were last-minute cases
to begin with. It shouldn't impact the argument for patients who are signed
up in advance of their death and thus have time to arrange perfusion. If you
want to present evidence of actual degradation in clinical practice (rather
than simply extending services to a wider range of clients), you'll need to
find another example.

The ethics of non-ideal cryonics cases are discussed here (by Dr. Wowk):

If I understand correctly, CI does not even officially provide stabilization
services. They provide storage, and that's it. That the patient who was
signed up in advance was perfused is a positive indication that CI members
are taking initiative to get perfusion when needed.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33167