X-Message-Number: 15349
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:48:24 -0500
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Reply to Ettinger Part 2 - # 15227 & 15236

Once again, lack of comment about any particular Ettinger statement does
not signify agreement that it is correct or even pertinent.

First, an addition to my comments in #15337 about Ettinger's referral to
the need for rapid and uniform rewarming.

>>for storage ideally at a temperature 

>>(in the neighborhood of - 130 C) not easily maintained with great reliability
>>with equipment currently available, and for very fast and very uniform 
>>rewarming to avoid "devitrification" (formation of ice crystals during 
>>rewarming).
>
>Again neither of these are related to vitrification per se. The first is
>true for any cryopreservation of tissue. All current patients would be
>more viable (have a better chance of restoration in the future) if they
>had been stored at a higher temperature than that of liquid nitrogen. It
>is well known that liquid nitrogen was only used as a matter of
>convenience and to minimize storage costs. With respect to the major
>damage previously being done to patients by freezing it was reasonably
>deemed that the additional damage done by storage at that temperature
>would be insignificant in comparison. However, the damage being done by
>current methods is thought to be small enough that the additional damage
>done by storage at liquid nitrogen temperature would not be
>insignificant and that using a more optimal storage temperature is worth
>the added cost and complexity.
>The second (fast and uniform rewarming) is done for reasons similar to
>the fast cooling explained above and it too will likely disappear as
>better vitrification solutions appear.

What needs to be added here is that, while the rewarming problem needs
to be solved (or better cryoprotectants achieved) before the
reversibility of current methods can be *demonstrated*, this is not a
problem inherent to using those methods for current cryonics purposes!
This is because the time of restoration for any current cryonics patient
will be sufficiently far in the future that a solution to the problem of
rapid and uniform rewarming will most certainly be at hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: 
>Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:58:47 EST
>Subject: Vitrification Instalment 3
>
>KIDNEYS VIABLE AFTER PERFUSION

[snip]

While the paper discussed is about very old work and the discussion is
now quite irrelevant as Platt (#15233) has pointed out and even Ettinger
himself has admitted, the following paragraph from this message still
requires comment.

>Once again, then, as far as I know, not a single mammalian organ of any kind 
>has been vitrified to long term storage temperature and then rewarmed and 
>examined. The difficulties with rabbit kidneys, stretching over many years, 
>suggest that problems with human brains may well take decades to resolve.

It does not suggest any such thing. Rabbit kidneys have been the
"exploratory" vehicle for research on reversible cryopreservation of
tissue masses. They were chosen for that role for many sound reasons one
of which was that they were closer to brains in complexity and tissue
type multiplicity than any other organ. As with any "exploration", a
great many alleys had to be checked before it was found that they were
blind. In addition, the funding available for such research has always
been extremely minimal (most cryobiologists still believe that the goal
is impossible and the only other organ cryopreservation center in the
world was disbanded). Finally, there were many political and manpower
problems which caused delays and detours in the research.

The current research is directed first toward developing fundamentally
better cryopreservation methods for several organs including the brain,
*before* the work of verifying the full functionally is attempted. This
method prevents the waste of both many futile attempts at restoration
which is not, or only barely, possible (ie will have a high failure
rate), and of maintaining the personnel and complex setup necessary to
achieve successful transplantations. For brains, it also allows more
emphasis to be placed on the most important and most achievable area of
research, since functional transplantations are near impossible due to
the nature of their physiological requirements (ie. the brain requires
complex I/O connections - currently impossible to achieve - in order to
verify its functionality).   

>Of 
>course, this is a reason for more research effort, not less--but it is also a 
>reason to take with a very large grain of salt any claims about current 
>capabilities.

While it is always wise to be skeptical about any new information until
facts are presented and verified, unless Ettinger is actually implying
that the scientists involved are lying and presenting false information,
then his conclusion is not tenable in the face of the new results as
compared with past results.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>From: 
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:30:54 EST
>Subject: addendum, Plattitudes
>
>For those unable or unwilling to find and gauge the facts for themselves, it 
>might be worth while to note that I am not the only one advocating caution in 
>accepting Alcor's current vitrification enthusiasm uncritically.
>
>As veteran readers know, Paul Wakfer is not friendly to me or to CI,

Ettinger continues to confuse objectively critical comments with
irrational emotions. If I am unfriendly toward Robert Ettinger it is
because I find it hard to be either charitable or tolerant to a person
who continues to do so much harm to so many people. With respect to CI,
being a individualist instead of a collectivist, I do not regard
organizations as entities which engender emotions of any kind. I regard
CI as a group of individuals to some of whom I am quite "friendly"
indeed and for some of whom I definitely have little esteem.

>and is a 
>strong advocate of vitrification, and he has been close to the research and 
>the organizations involved,

I am not close to Alcor at all, and will not be so while certain people
are in control of that organization. As I have stated before, while I
still intend to be cryopreserved when and if I need it, I am not signed
up because no cryonics organization currently satisfies my minimum
standards. There are a number of long time cryonicists from CryoCare who
are in the same position. 

>but a month or two back he posted the following:
>-------------------
>Zeb Haradon wrote: "Bryan Hall" <> wrote in message 
>news: http://www.alcor.org/eventsb.html#Update I 
>got a notice in the mail from them regarding this, it's great news. It 
>basically says they are now going to be vitrifying neuro-suspendees. Since 
>vitrification will not cause any freezing damage, and the only issue is the 
>toxicity of the vitrification chemicals, this means that nanotechnology will 
>(probably) not be required for revival. I hope this means research will begin 
>soon on realistic revival scenerios. [End quotation]
>
>[Wakfer now]: 
>
>I think that your statements go too far in their interpretation of the 
>benefits of vitrification. 
>
>First, being able to vitrify by cooling does not necessarily mean that 
>specimens can remain ice-free or otherwise damage free during rewarming.

My criticism was "off-the-cuff" and while the above sentence is true, it
would have been better either omitted or put at the end instead of being
up-front, for reasons already explained in this and yesterday's posts.

>Second, we have always been able to vitrify, but this was not done because 
>the toxicities involved (even some disintegration of cell membranes) were 
>clearly not tolerable to restoring life. The current vitrification procedure 
>does still not leave the tissue viable, but the toxicity is low enough that a 
>decision has been made by someone (perhaps partly for promotional reasons) 
>that toxicity damage is "better" than ice damage.

While the above line is fully correct, I regret that I did not make it
clear that it did not mean that 21CM CPA solutions are as toxic or more
so than past Alcor or CI CPA solutions. As stated elsewhere, the current
CPA solutions advocated by 21CM are far less toxic than previous
solutions at the SAME ICE FORMING CONCENTRATIONS. They are also clearly
less toxic at the near vitrifiable concentrations at which they are
being used than is glycerol at the high concentrations (but still not
nearly vitrifiable) which have been used by both Alcor and CI following
a wrong-headed "more of a good thing is better" approach in disregard of
advice from researchers in the field (even past Alcor experience and
knowledge itself). To be explicit about this, highly concentrated
glycerol destroys cell membranes, while the new 21CM solutions certainly
do not. 
 
This not to say that my statement about a toxicity versus ice damage
tradeoff was wrong, nor does that statement mean that I view the
tradeoff decision as being wrong. If the CPA concentration were reduced
there would certainly be less toxicity, but there would also be some ice
damage. If the CPA concentration were increased there would be more
toxicity, but there would not be the need for such rapid
cooling/rewarming to avoid crystallization (and further toxicity due to
more time when toxic reactions could occur). Thus, a tradeoff decision
has been made which attempts to skirt the edge of toxicity versus ice
damage. Without knowing all the reasoning which went into that decision,
I am in no position to criticize it (and neither moreso is Ettinger) and
I am happy to accept the decision of the scientists who made it. My
comments were only meant to highlight the fact that there was still a
tradeoff being made. Until we achieve CPA solutions which at fully
vitrifiable concentrations give 100% functional recovery, such tradeoff
decisions will continue to be needed.

>Since we currently have no 
>method of restoring from either kind of damage, this decision is at best a 
>"guesstimate" rather than a decision based on scientific research.

To expand on this:
1. We cannot fully experiment with all CPA concentrations to see which
is best because we have no way of testing "best" (full functional
recovery) at the present time.
2. Therefore, we have no exact and measurable (ie fully scientific)
method to test various CPA solutions to see which is "best". 3. Thus,
all that we can go by are partial tests of which the sodium/potassium
ratio test appears to be the one with the best reliability/cost ratio as
shown by its past correlation with rabbit kidney transplant success
after partial cryopreservation procedures.
4. So while the decision was based on *partial* scientific research and
the best knowledge available from that, it was not rigorously based in
the same manner that, say, optimal dosages of drugs or vitamins are
determined by testing various dosages for clear, definite, and
functional measurable effects.
  
>To take an 
>extreme example, long-term preservation in embalming fluid has always been 
>possible (and without ice damage!), but no one ever proposed it because no 
>one ever thought that life could ever be restored from that state, or even 
>that the mind was fully captured and preserved. Thus, until we actually 
>finish the necessary research to restore to life a person who is preserved in 
>a manner which allows no deterioration over a long term, I think that it is 
>premature to say what kind of technology will or will not be necessary for 
>that restoration.

Note that I was not here criticizing the vitrification decisions, but
the Pollyanna view of the poster to which I was responding (and possibly
of the original Alcor article, although I confess that I have not read
it).

>-- Paul -- 
>-------------------------
>Well, Platt probably read this at the time, but did not attempt to refute it, 
>and did not accuse Wakfer of moral turpitude. 

Since Charles was not subscribed to CryoNet at that time, I expect that
he did not read the post.
BTW, I too was not subscribed. It was in answer to a sci.cryonics post
and since Kitty was posting a correction to a comment of Ettinger's
concerning INC that very day, I thought it might be useful for
everyone's perspective if she tacked this onto the end. In any case, as
explained above I regret the misunderstandings which my hastily written
comments above have caused, and I add once more that nothing I have said
above in any many strengthens Ettinger's position that the methods used
by CI are in any manner superior to those advocated by 21CM.

-- Paul --

The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
A California charitable corporation funding research to
perfect cryopreservation of central nervous system tissue
for neuroscience research & medical repair of the brain.
Voice-mail: 416-968-6291  Fax: 559-663-5511

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15349