X-Message-Number: 15258
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:27:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: To Charles Platt

> Message #15246
> From: Charles Platt <>
> 
> > 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.
>
 Just how big a chance for resuscitation are you assuming here?
Lets assume for the sake of argument that Alcor's cryogoop gives 
double the chance of resuscitation that CI's gives.
 Then if CI's glycerol gives a 25% chance, Alcor's cryogoop gives 50%. 
However if CI's glycerol gives a 0.1% chance, then Alcor's gives 0.2%.
Not much to get excited about in the later case. In any case it is 
debatible whether a toxic vitrification solution is less damaging than 
a safer partial vitrification solution, such as CI currently uses.

> 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.
>
 Maybe. Vitrification could have been achieved years 
ago, at the price of toxicity. My own evaluation of the tea leaves 
indicates toxicity MAY BE less important than ice damage. Certainly 
a vitrification option would be nice to have. CI could achieve this 
with no increase in its prices by substituting a more dehydrating 
solution for 70% glycerol. An ethylene glycol/glycerol solution 
would certainly do the job. CI could offer the option of either type 
of perfusion, and let its clients chose which one they prefer. Both 
would suffer from negatives. One from ice damage, and the other from
cellular toxicity, and possibly fracturing.
 
> 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.
>
 Not so confident in my case. Lets just say we have different goals.
 Everyone here wants to live to 150+ in good health.
Most people in the general population are much more interested in 
living to 75+ in good health. Seeing that neither of my own parents 
made it to 75, this constitutes my own first order of business. 
IMHO, all attempts to live beyond 150 via either life extension or
cryonics are just pie-in-the-sky hopes at this point. 
 Policosanol is a good solid, sensible supplement likely to enable 
many to live to an age where fully reversible cryonics has become a
reality. Even radical life extension techniques capable of increasing
lifespan beyond 150 years may become available to those us who avoid 
death and disability due to plaque.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15258