X-Message-Number: 15473
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Catching Up
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:52:33 +0000


Weird things have happened to my usual email address while I was away for a few 
days. I have received an error message, since Saturday, telling me that I can't 
log on because they are doing system maintenance. While I am trying to sort this
out, I have established a new email account,  Also I 
have updated myself on CryoNet postings by reading the archives at 
www.cryonet.org. Note that if you sent me personal email during the past week, I
haven't been able to read it, and you may want to re-send it to my new address.

Now I will try to catch up with CryoNet to-and-fro during the past week.

I will reply first to Robert Ettinger:


R.E. wrote: "Incidentally, it is a tricky proposition to compare delay times of 
Alcor's recent patients and CI's recent patients. First, the sample is small and
the circumstances of death happenstance. It is the overview that is important. 
Longer delays on average with Alcor are inherently certain, because Alcor's 
traveling team has to get there, and THAT in recent cases has taken 30 hours or 
more--whereas, if a CI patient has made emergency arrangements with a local 
funeral director, delay in arrival of help is usually less than an hour, 
sometimes just a few minutes, and the local help could include washout and 
perfusion." 


My reply: Why is it a "tricky proposition"? What does this mean? CI makes a 
point of saying that its funeral directors provide a faster response, and 
logically this seems to be true. So, why not say what the response has actually 
been? Since CI has listed the very poor transportation times for the last four 
Alcor people, can't we be told what the transportation times are (from deathbed 
to laboratory) for CI people? What's so "tricky" about this?


R.E. wrote: "2. (Are instructions for funeral directors available?) Of 
course--they are available to all members and their funeral directors, and are 
not confidential. We haven't previously posted them on the web site--just one of
many things we haven't yet gotten around to doing. The proverbial one-armed 
paper-hanger. But we will." 

My reply: Um, okay. Of course you don't say when.... 

Would it not be simple to cut-and-paste this information into a post to CryoNet?
I am naturally curious to learn what your funeral directors are told to do, 
when they get a case for cryonics preservation. Will this information be made 
public?


R.E. quoted me as saying: "Here's another thought. I would tend to think that 
when those people of the future decide who is worth resuscitating and who is not
worth bothering with, they'll be likely to choose the people who accepted their
responsibility..." And then E wrote: "What in the world is he talking about? 
Does he imagine that some agency is going to look at the roster of our patients 
and then vote on who is "worth" resuscitating and who is not?" 


My reply: I have no idea why Mr. Ettinger finds it "incredible" that some people
might be revived, while others are not. Has he heard of the principle of triage
(used in every emergency room)? His incredulity just confirms my previous 
statement: That he seems to feel he "deserves" to be revived. But, adult 
experience in the world teaches us that we don't always get what we deserve. 
Also, people who contribute more to the world are perceived as being more 
valuable. I am still not convinced that someone else (now or in the future) will
take care of everything for all of us, regardless of who we are.


R.E. wrote: "A couple of people expressed the opinion that the toxicity must 
also be much lower than that of the current CI solution, which is 75% glycerol 
by volume (i.e., 750 ml glycerol added to 250 ml water at room temperature, 
later refrigerated). However, our one-pass does not result in equilibration. Our
measurements indicate a final average concentration in the brain tissue of 
around 26% by weight, hence obviously a much lower toxicity than the previous 
Alcor standard."


My reply: This is VERY interesting. It seems to mean that the people who claim a
"closed circuit" is better are right, because if you circulate the glycerol for
longer, it must have a better chance of getting where it is supposed to go. If 
less than half of CI's glycerol is actually getting into the cells, isn't this 
rather a problem?

But also the CI system raises another question. If it "does not equilibrate," I 
assume this means that it doesn't reach a balance. In other words, there must be
higher concentrations in some places than others. This sounds rather 
unsatisfactory, and I wonder where the "26%" figure was measured.

R.E. wrote: "As for Grimes, however--Alcor is welcome to him."


This is the first time I've been excluded from buying a service, before I have 
even applied for it! I am really amazed, and also quite insulted. Would someone 
please tell me what I did to provoke this? So far, I have been quite polite and 
I have just asked questions, not so different from questions which a patient 
would ask of a doctor, if the patient was facing a medical procedure. Since 
cryonics organizations are hoping to save lives, wouldn't it be quite natural 
for people to ask how the procedures work, especially bearing in mind that the 
whole thing is experimental and not controlled by any government standards? Why 
on earth would CI try to get rid of someone who simply wants to know how things 
work?


I should add that I assumed I would get short, simple, factual answers to my 
questions, because I assumed the questions must have been asked before, and the 
answers would be "ready to go." Instead I have received a lot of unpleasantness,
especially from David Pascal. But I will answer him in a separate message.

Jeff Grimes.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15473