X-Message-Number: 15229
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:51:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Vitrification

I complained here recently about lack of information, but this may not be
the most pernicious problem. Misinformation is worse. From Robert
Ettinger:

> As previously noted, the current Alcor "vitrification" procedures seem to be
> based on guesswork, there having been (to my knowledge) not a single
> mammalian brain reported anywhere, formally or informally, as vitrified to
> long term storage temperature and then rewarmed and studied.

A preliminary experiment, with two rabbit brains, demonstrated probable
vitrification and the ability to rewarm the brains with very little
significant damage. Electron micrographs of these brains were published in
Cryonics magazine, CryoCare Update, and (as I recall) The Immortalist,
which of course is the magazine founded by Ettinger and edited, for many
years, by his wife. Certainly Ettinger is aware of the rabbit-brain work.
His excuse for not mentioning it seems to be that it does not conform with
his personal (unstated) definition of "long term storage temperature." To
dismiss the relevance of the experiment on this basis, and then suggest
that any conclusions based on it are "guesswork," is grossly and, I
suggest, intentionally misleading. It is an implied slur against the
scientists who did it and the organization which is now using the
principles on cryopatients. It suggests the worst kind of professional
jealousy.

I find it bizarre that the founder of Cryonics Institute has taken it upon
himself to educate us on the results of research conducted by scientists
whose work he has belittled, repeatedly, over the last two decades. This
is, after all, the same man who once sent me a letter arguing that simpler
procedures (as used by his organization) might be safer than sophisticated
procedures (used by other organizations), since we cannot know whether we
are helping or hindering the ability of future science to resuscitate
patients. If we follow this peculiar logic to its conclusion, it suggests
that those mysterious future scientists might actually prefer to revive
patients whose brains have suffered as much damage as possible.

> Rewarming must be greater than 100 deg C per minute (!) to avoid
> devitrification (formation of ice crystals). Radio frequency (RF) heating
> systems have been developed for this, but my impression is that this is still
> not reliable, if available at all.

The report that appeared in The Immortalist emphasized that RF heating is
no longer necessary. I assume Ettinger is aware of this; so why mention
the problems associated with RF now? The intention apparently is to raise
as many doubts as possible, regardless of their validity.

> Now, a further word about toxicity. The patent claims that low toxicity is
> one of the virtues of the alkoxylated compounds. Well, first, on a clinical
> level, after seeing the recommendations in the patent, we at CI have done a
> bit of our own research, and so far (freezing, not vitrification) have found
> no improvement over glycerol.

This para implies that CI has used precisely the same compounds and
procedures as described by the quoted patent. I believe this implication
is false. If it is not false, please provide a proper description of the
work, explaining what you mean by "no improvement."

> It is especially interesting that the inventors, employees of 21CM, were not
> professional cryobiologists. Brian Wowk, as I recall, has a recent Ph.D. in
> biophysics, and had little or no previous experience in cryobiology.
> Federowicz has no academic credentials whatever, and also, as far as I know,
> no previous professional publications. I am not acquainted with Sandra
> Russell. Steve Harris is a young physician, also, I believe, without previous
> experience in cryobiology.

Again, this is deliberately misleading. Ettinger is well aware that the
work at 21CM is led by one of the world's most respected cryobiologists.
Also, while he implies that Harris and Russell are still employed by 21CM,
he must surely know that they are not.

> As I have said many times, once the evidence is clear and verified, we expect
> to make any and all useful procedures available to our members, directly or
> indirectly, subject to decisions by our Board of Directors from time to time.

CI has no god-given right to adopt procedures that are protected by
patents. CI can use these procedures if, and only if, the patent holders
grant a license. Ettinger has been reminded of this repeatedly, but has
always refused to mention it, preferring to imply that CI will adopt the
results of other people's research at its own discretion.

A naive reader might conclude from Ettinger's post that he has conducted a
fair assessment of the work in question, and is waiting wisely to see
whether it is up to the high standards of The Cryonics Institute, while
others rush ahead without proper evidence of efficacy. I find this
apparently deliberate distortion of the truth extremely offensive.

The fact is, even the procedures that were developed by Alcor during the
1980s would be a significant improvement over the protocol used by the
Cryonics Institute, as it has been described to me by a knowledgable
person at CI; yet this organization has steadfastly refused even to
implement better data collection and monitoring. A couple of years ago,
Darwin and others offered to GIVE CI some basic monitoring equipment, the
only proviso being that CI personnel should be trained in its use. This
gift was refused.

Details are in the CryoNet archives.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15229