X-Message-Number: 14951
From: 
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:38:09 EST
Subject: new procedures

Keith Dugue (#14946) mentions my reminder that CI procedures do not produce 
cracking, and Brian Wowk's note a while back that (a) frozen brains have 
suffered damage worse than cracking, and (b) vitrified brains are more 
susceptible to cracking [and Fred Chamberlain's current article says 
vitrified brains, in liquid nitrogen--which they plan to use at least for 
now--will fracture, i.e. break into many pieces].

I'm not quite sure what Mr. Dugue's point was. There seems no dispute that CI 
methods do not produce visible cracking on any scale. Some may choose to call 
almost any kind of structural damage "cracking" on a microscopic scale, but I 
don't think that's appropriate. An ice hole, for example, is not a "crack" in 
the ordinary meaning of that term.

As noted, Fred says the planned new Alcor procedures (using liquid nitrogen 
storage) WILL produce "fracturing" or multiple cracking, which could also be 
called "shattering" if the pieces were not held near each other.

How serious is fracturing? It seems likely that this kind of damage--like 
many others--will need high level nanotech for repair. 

Despite the limited evidence at my disposal concerning realistic cases, I do 
not deny that, with certain kinds of specimens, damage by vitrification is in 
most respects reduced compared to damage by freezing. That is good, and 
justifies the efforts of 21CM and Alcor and BT and INC.  But the procedures 
announced by Fred as (probably soon) forthcoming from BT/Alcor are NOT the 
procedures reported as producing the displayed results. The evidence Fred 
cites relates to experiments at higher temperatures or/and specimens other 
than mammalian brains, except for the INC rat brain slices showing 53% 
"viability" (by an unidentified criterion). Also, of course, that evidence 
relates to ideal laboratory conditions, not actual prevailing conditions for 
cryonics patients. 

Once more, "viability" means capability of resuming full function--ALL 
metabolic pathways restored--and only a tiny fraction of this has so far been 
shown. For that matter, only a tiny fraction of the relevant structural 
questions have been answered--nor have we yet even identified all the right 
questions.

I'm not trying to be a Grinch or a wet blanket--or if I am, it isn't with 
malicious intent. In cryonics matters, "skeptic" is not my usual role. For 
the longer term, I'm more optimistic than most. But for the nearer term, I 
have seen enough over the last half century, and the last decade, and the 
last year, to be cautious. 

Again, for perspective: Cryonics Institute is vigorously pursuing its own 
research, and posting results on our web site and in THE IMMORTALIST from 
time to time. (Another set of independent evaluations should be ready within 
two weeks.) We intend to offer all reasonable options to our members as they 
become available, either in-house or through collaborations or subcontracts. 
In particular, if BioTransport or/and 21CM live up to their stated intentions 
and make their procedures available on a subcontract or a license basis, then 
we expect our members will have that option and still save money.    

Alcor has aired its dilemma--whether to offer different options at different 
prices or to offer only the option of perceived highest quality. It seems to 
have decided on, or at least lean to, the latter, for new members. 

CI leans the other way, although at this point we offer only a single 
procedure, which we expect to improve over time with no change in price. 
Later on, I anticipate we may offer both "higher" and "lower" options. 

Stay tuned.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14951