X-Message-Number: 15409
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:08:51 -0700
Subject: Misleading?


All right, I suppose I have got myself into this, so I will continue. I have 
spent a lot of time going through the web site for CI, and find some statements 
that seem flat-out wrong, or at least misleading, and I am really surprised that
other organizations have not objected (maybe they haven't bothered to look at 
the web site).


I am interested in the Cryonics Institute partly because it seems to be the only
organization providing service in the UK these days. The web site is VERY large
so I will just pick a small piece to start with, relating to some recent 
discussions here. 

     "Also, and more importantly, the cryoprotectants used in

vitrification are toxic. Thus, vitrification kills cells: it poisons and injures
them to the point of actually disintegrating cell membranes in some cases. 
Indeed, the damage done by vitrification has been so immense and so 	much worse 
than conventional suspension treatments that, on balance, every last cryonics 
organization has throughout cryonics history opted for the less destructive 
option of conventional glycerol suspension and cooling and liquid nitrogen 
storage."


This is a bit "controversial" isn't it? We saw a post on CryoNet not long ago by
one of the scientists developing vitrification, who stated flatly that the 
chemicals used are LESS toxic than the 75% glycerol which Cryonics Institute 
says it uses now. Does he know what he's talking about? One problem I have with 
the CI page is that it includes hardly any references for any of the things it 
says about its competitors. Where does their information come from? Surely it 
cannot be very ethical to state outright that "damage done by vitrification has 
been so immense and so much worse" if you don't have a really solid source for 
your statement. Since Robert Ettinger complains that the procedures used by 
competitors are "secret" how can he know that they are so bad?


I am also really surprised by the last part of the quote stating that all other 
organizations have "opted for" conventional glycerol. Did they have a choice? 
From previous posts it seems that only one organization (Alcor) has been allowed
a license to use the vitrification system, which was only developed last year 
anyway. But "throughout cryonics history" suggests vitrification has been an 
option for years. It hasn't, has it? This seems intentionally misleading.

Here's another part that bothered me:


"What does 'viable' mean? It does not mean that half the cells were cooled to a 
temperature that forestalled all decay and were then restored to healthy life. 
It means that, in two experiments, about half the cells managed to retain a 
potassium/sodium ratio that cells require to be alive. About half did not, and 
were irrecoverably dead (by present methods)."


But we saw a post here recently that absolutely contradicted this and stated 
that the percentage viability measures the overall ability of cells to do what 
they normally do, which is like saying an athlete can only run 53% as fast as he
used to (but he's still running, not lying on the ground, with half of him 
paralyzed). How did Cryonics Institute get this so wrong? 


Since these are VERY serious allegations, isn't there a question of legal 
liability here? I mean if this was a pharmaceutical company claiming that a new 
drug by another pharmaceutical company killed its patients, and the company 
making the accusation did not bother to back up this claim with some citations 
to literature, or even a phone call to check the facts, I would expect the 
injured party to file a law suit or restraining order ASAP.


I must say, the Cryonics Institute does seem to have some advantages in its use 
of morticians to provide a faster local response than other organizations, but 
its web site bothers me somewhat because it is so full of negative comparisons, 
without references or proof. When I first became interested in cryonics I 
assumed that in a small field, there would be some need for people to support 
each other. But it looks more like the Maoists vs the Trotskyites vs the 
Stalinists.

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=15409