X-Message-Number: 5605
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 01:58:55 GMT
From: Garret Smyth <>
Subject: Chances of Revival

Robert Ettinger:
> >Brad Templeton--without displaying any calculation--expresses a certain
> >degree of pessimism (some would call it optimism), estimating or guessing a
> >10% chance of revival of today's cryostasis patients. Most
> >cryobiologists--without even pretending to make a calculation--call the
> >chance "negligible."

Ralph Dratatman: 
> Do you have specific references from cryobiologists commenting on this
> question, or are you basing your statement on informal communications?

I don't know about Robert Ettinger, but I suspect he has communicated with
at least as many cryobiologists as I hav, both privately and publicly. From my
own experience, I have certainly met more cryobiologists that refuse to even
countenance cryonics than are in favour of it. Only the ones against it are
prepared to say so in public. The ones whose names I can think of are:
Fuller, Green and Hobbs, all from The Royal Free Hospital in London (although
Hobbs might more properly be called a cryothanatologist that cryobiologist

since he does cryosurgery), Bill Bald of York University and David Pegg formerly
of Cambridge, but latterly of York (he lost his grant for research into organ
cryopreservation and had to move elsewhere, which was purely coincidental,

I feel sure, with his appearance in the media saying that organ cryopreservation
is impossible). There have been others.

It must be noted that the Cryobiology Society has in its rules that they
can expell anyone who has anything to do with cryonics, so for a mainstream
cryobiologist, "coming out" might mean losing their job. Hence cryobiologists
that have been positive about cryonics tend to be fairly private.

"It still turns!" they whisper, "It still turns".

> I am starting to take cryonics seriously for the first time, and would like
> to learn more about the scientific issues, particularly with respect to
> tissue damage and recent advances in cryoprotection technology, if any. A
> current review article would be ideal.

Phew! I wish I could whip one up. A review paper would be great!

> In particular, I am intrigued by the fact that embryos can be frozen and
> thawed, while adult mammals apparently cannot. Why is that? Is there a
> threshold of size and complexity involved?


Mainly size, but it is a complex issue. Can anyone else sum it up fairly simply?
We really need a condensed text book here. BTW, if there is one, may I buy a 
copy?

> Also, how does the brain itself fit into this spectrum of freezability? 

Better than a lot of tissues, but we need more research.

> has
> anyone tried reviving any neural tissue after deep freeze?

Smith, Suda (especially good papers), and some others, although I haven't seen
the recent papers.

> I apologize if these questions have been asked and answered before, maybe
> even numerous times; the problem is that I don't know where I should look
> for this information. The CryoNet FAQ seems to be pretty light in the area
> of basic science.

Even though I know some of the theory and have read some of the papers, I can
only join your call for more detail.

TTFN

G

-- 
Garret Smyth

Phone:  0181 789 1045 or +44 181 789 1045


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5605