X-Message-Number: 15246 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: To Doug Skrecky Doug Screcky writes: > Great stuff, Charles. However I suspect that most people are like > myself, in preferring somewhat milder rejoiners. Doug, my ratio of mildness in public text, relative to intensity of personal feelings, is about 1:5 right now. That's the best I can do. Rest assured, I am using powerful internal filtering techniques to downplay my personal anger and disgust. > I don't see much point in getting overly expressive over material, > that is dry as dust to most readers. I'm quite confident that when > 21'st Century Medicine has perfected vitrification of whole organs, > that proof of this will be rapidly provided that will be adequate > to impress Dr Ettinger, and the rest of crew at CI, not to mention a > lot of other people, myself included, as well. Well, Doug, I am impressed by your ability to see the best in people. But we have to look at the lessons of history, here. Back in the early 1980s, Darwin and Leaf developed a closed-circuit perfusion system, using ramped concentrations ot glycerol, and conducted many fully-reported, properly controlled experiments demonstrating beyond any conceivable doubt that this system enabled more effective cryoprotection (better penetration, less visible damage in electron and light microscopy) than the old, primitive approach in which a mortician (or similarly unqualified person) forces high-concentration glycerol through the patient in a brief, uncontrolled, and relatively unmonitored procedure using an open circuit (i.e. no recirculation). I think anyone who reads the results of this work must agree that there is no room for dispute. The results are simply better. We have known this for more than FIFTEEN YEARS. Yet CI still refuses to accept the reality of the situation, and is still using the old open-circuit technique (at least, there have been no announcements to the contrary), while claiming that its results are mighty fine. Now, tell me again why it is "inevitable" that the discussion over vitrification will end as soon as definitive results are achieved. I predict that unprincipled attempts to denigrate vitrification (always under the pretext of objectivity, of course) will continue indefinitely, so long as CI is not offering this procedure itself. Proven facts are totally irrelevant to this inter-organizational jealousy and competitiveness. > On the contrary I find a certain degree of skepticism to be refreshing, > and much appreciated. Skepticism is useful only when it is accompanied by willingness to be open-minded about results of new work. I was skeptical, for instance, about claims from Ola Visser; but I still flew from New York to Phoenix, and spent two days trying to determine whether the work was important. By comparison, I have yet to see Robert Ettinger attend a presentation by 21CM or Critical Care Research. On one occasion, he actually left the conference hall rather than listen to a progress report. And this is the man who now claims to be providing an authoritative, balanced overview? > Whether complete (as opposed to partial) > vitrification becomes feasible this year, or in 25 years in > not a matter of great concern to most of us personally. This is an astonishing statement. If I die tomorrow, I think the availability of brain vitrification will be absolutely crucial in determining whether I can be resuscitated in 50 years, 200 years, or never. I think the elimination of catastrophic ice damage is the single most important issue in cryonics, and always has been. And for anyone who is at risk of death, it is a vital concern--or should be. > That's why taking Policosanol to inhibit plaque > in arteries easily tops cryonics as an item of interest in my own case. Fine, so long as you don't (e.g.) choke while swallowing one of the tablets. At that point, cryonics might begin to seem more relevant. It has always been mysterious to me that life-extension advocates (such as Doug) feel so confident that drugs will enable them to avoid death. Doug, are you really certain that accidents won't happen? I would be curious to know more about this; and the exchange might be more interesting than the irritating process of pointing out omissions and distortions in third-party summations of vitrification experiments. --Charles Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15246