X-Message-Number: 6909
From: 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 16:44:08 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS questions, focus

QUESTIONS AND FOCUS

First, a couple of very quick specific answers to yesterday's questions:

1. Charles Platt asks about the relevance of freezing sheep hearts.

The answer is that, if successful, it will (a) extend the evidence for the
Visser method to a larger organ and a different species; (b) it will help
pave the way for work on human hearts and other large organs, potentially
leading to organ banking and saving of lives; (c) it will almost surely
improve public relations and the credibility of cryonics, as well as bringing
the Visser method to the attention of more potential sources of funding for
Mrs. Visser's further work.

Of course, our work with sheep brains will have more direct importance for
cryonics, and that will begin as soon as possible--and will require more
funding.

2. Brian Wowk says cooling rate may be critical, and faster cooling generally
results in less damage, hence the rapid cooling of Mrs. Visser's rat hearts
may mean her method is not applicable to larger organs, which will
necessarily experience slower cooling.

(a) As I said, the fact that thawing was much slower than cooling (thawing
takes roughly 50 times as long as cooling) lends support to the idea that
slower cooling would also have worked. This is obvious for reasons too
numerous to mention. If you want references, see e.g. Meryman's CRYOBIOLOGY
(1966), p. 70: "Wherever rapid freezing is necessary for survival, rapid
thawing also is almost universally necessary."

(b) There are additional reasons for optimism, which we cannot yet reveal,
based on the specific nature of the Visser method and its effects.  

3. Brian also suggests that the partial success of Mrs. Visser's single pig
heart experiment means little, comparing it to the "partial" success of
Pichugin's work showing coordinated biolectric activity in networks of
neurons in glycerolized rabbit brain pieces rewarmed from liquid nitrogen;
and he says, "Still, we know that glycerol by itself will never achieve
reversible brain preservation."

(a) This is not especially important in this context, but my impression was
that PP looks to vitrification in a method that DOES use glycerol. Maybe the
"by itself" qualification means it will be different with vitrification.

(b) The emphasis should be on "Mrs. Visser's SINGLE pig heart experiment."
Hardly anything works 100% on the first try; Mrs. Visser so far has lacked
the resources to pursue this further. A partial success on the first try is
usually taken as a very
optimistic sign.

4. Brian minimizes the importance of the rat heart success by saying it is
[merely] "...an extension of similar work peviously reported for small
amphibians to small mammals..."

Karow and others have tried for about 30 years to accomplish this feat. If
your vitrification had accomplished this, you would be trumpeting it, with
justification. You have already trumpeted that your secret version of
vitrification has been successful with SLICES of rabbit kidneys. Is success
with slices of rabbit kidneys more impressive than success with whole rat
hearts?

If someone discovers a vaccine against AIDS, or against the common cold, will
you say this is "merely an extension of similar work previously done with
other diseases"? 

If I wanted to do some of my own spin doctoring, I could remind PP people
that, even if whole rabbit kidneys are finally revived after vitrification
(after many years of trying), using RF heating, it is FAR from clear that
this methodology can be extended to larger organs. The problems with RF
heating become MUCH greater with larger specimens. 

FOCUS: Various arm-chair experts want to see more and more details of what we
have done, and what we intend to do, and why, and how, (and under what
astrological sign?), before considering donating to the Immortalist Society
and Alcor research pursuing the Visser method. Some of them are simply
agenda-driven; others really want to exercise individual judgment (kibitzers
or back-seat drivers).

For the agenda-driven, no response will suffice, ever. 

For the others, I can only appeal to common sense. We welcome your comments,
but will not delay our work to submit our plans for your approval. Do you
really think that we and our collaborating and consulting experts are unaware
of the issues you raise? Do you think we would expend our time and money if
we didn't think we could do it right? Don't you think the risk/reward is
immensely favorable?

AFTER-THOUGHTS & PERSONAL NOTES: One scenario goes roughly like this. The
current work by Alcor/IS/CI can be thought of as PPP, Prometheus Project
Precursor, extending application of the Visser method during the next 12
months. After that could come PP, the coordinated effort toward fully
perfected human cryostasis. I have no psychological need to be in charge of
anything, and would welcome a passive part in the PP. Mae and I are trying to
get our responsibilities reduced, not expanded, so we can better enjoy our
 few remaining years before we are frozen. 

Therefore I am willing to pledge to PP and to urge others to do so (the LARGE
MAJORITY in cryonics who are not yet committed to PP)--but ONLY if the PP
people will give PPP the same support. That means a decent number of PP
people must IMMEDIATELY donate (that is DONATE, not pledge) a full year's
worth of their PP pledges, half to the Immortalist Society and half to Alcor.

Failing this (and I am not sanguine about its chances), I anticipate that PP
will not achieve its aim of unifying immortalists in cryonics research.
Instead, the various organizations, companies, and academies will pursue
independent research, with anticipated coordination among Alcor, IS, CI, and
the Visser group. That's probably just as good as PP, and maybe better--but I
personally am still willing to work for PP, if the support is reciprocal per
paragraph above.   

If your primary focus--like ours--is on improving chances of survival for
yourselves and your families, please show it now. 

CHORUS:  Please send your maximum donation NOW (tax deductible), half to the
Immortalist Society and half to Alcor Life Extension Foundation, for
IMMEDIATE application to extension of the Visser technology. Memo the
separate checks "Research Fund." PP people donate an amount equal to your
annual PP pledge.

The life you save may be your own.  

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
24355 Sorrentino Court
Clinton Township MI 48035 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6909