X-Message-Number: 15408
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:02:06 -0700
Subject: Re: CryoNet #15393 - #15400


I didn't mean to start a new debate here, I was just pointing out that no one 
(at least on Cryonet) seems to show much interest in what Cryonics Institute 
procedures are. And if we don't know what the procedures are, it's impossible to
make comparisons.


Mr. Ettinger says there's no secret. If there's no secret, why can't I find a 
specific description of the procedure currently being used on human patients at 
Cryonics Institute? This information does NOT seem to be on their web site. I 
sent email and received helpful responses from David Pascal, but I get the 
feeling he isn't really the guy to ask. He seems more on the PR end. He told me 
to contact a man at CI named Zawacki, which I still hope to do. In the meantime 
we have Mr. Ettinger (who should certainly know the score) making these 
statements:


"Nevertheless, I have written recently about CI procedures by reporting the new 
evaluations done by a Canadian lab using light and electron microscopy."


Yes, but there's no way of knowing what the differences are between the lab work
and the treatment of human patients, especially since the lab work used three 
different procedures. Which one is the same as you use on people? Is any of them
the same? 


"There is indeed considerable mystery about the Alcor procedures, parts of which
are still secret, which prevents us testing them ourselves."


Well, this may or may not be true. But here you go talking about Alcor again! I 
want to talk about CI! Why change the subject? 


"On our web site are extensive reports by the cryobiologists/microscopists who 
repeated our sheep head work and evaluated it in the Ukraine a few years back, 
with a great deal of detail."

But what does this have to do with CI procedures being used on people today?


"If anyone wants a summary of the procedure used on the sheep heads, which 
became the CI temporary standard, and doesn't want to bother with the detail on 
the web site, here it is in brief: The CPA is 75% V/V glycerol in a base of 
buffered Ringer's with Mannitol, at about 45 deg F. One pass."


I'm sorry but this is not a proper description. I wish you had spent as much 
time giving me the details as you spent on all the political rhetoric. Then we 
would have some better information. What is the Ringer's solution buffered with?
If you have 75% glycerol and 25% water by volume, and then you mix it with 
Ringer's solution, I assume this means the actual amount of glycerol decreases. 
Is that what you're saying here? So, what is the final concentration of 
glycerol?And how much Mannitol is used? I have some knowledge of chemistry, and 
have completed part of an emergency med tech course, but I don't understand why 
you need Mannitol. Can you explain this? Also you don't give any indication of 
how length the "one pass" is. Ten minutes? Ten hours?


Also you don't say anything about the volume of the solution which is passed 
through the person, or the temperature, or any methods for measuering 
temperature. 


"I doubt that any critic, including Mr. Grimes, really does want to know the 
exact details, except to look for debating points."


Well, I took the trouble to send two emails to CI asking for details, and now I 
am taking the trouble to ask questions here. So far, all I have from you, 
answering my question specifically, is one sentence, followed by a lot of PR 
about your organization.


I must add that I don't appreciate you telling me that if I ask questions, I 
can't be sincere.


Nor am I a "critic." (You sound a bit defensive about this.) I'm just asking for
information. This seems fair enough, since you have gone into so much detail 
criticizing procedures used by other organizations.

Jeff Grimes.

Get your free E-mail at http://www.zdnet.co.uk/mail/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15408