X-Message-Number: 15518 From: "Jeff Grimes" <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #15498 - #15511 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:05:09 +0000 > Message #15502 > From: > Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:49:35 EST > Subject: Grimes notes > > Most of what is in Grimes' posts today (yesterday, as you read this) is just > repetition I do not enjoy repeating myself. The only reason is because you claim that you are willing to answer questions, but then you don't actually give answers. In particular, I still want to know how long it took each of your last four cases to go from time of death to arrival at your lab. This is the fifth time I have asked this question. Are you going to answer it, or are you not going to answer it? If you are not going to answer it, please say so, and then I won't waste my time asking about it again. > If someone working for pay as a consultant cannot be "independent" then every > commercial testing lab in the world is suspect. Come off it. But Dr. Pichugin wasn't being employed in the same way as a testing laboratory. He was working for you on a continuing basis that lasted for at least a year, wasn't he? This seems to be the impression I get from your web site. So, once again, your statement seems deliberately misleading. He was not "independent" in the sense that you now imply. Incidentally I am not suggesting that Dr. Pichugin is untrustworthy or unprofessional. I am just pointing out that your statement about him was misleading. > As for our current evaluators in Canada, I repeat, they are willing to be > identified, but I am not willing to expose them to the possibility of > harassment. They don't need or deserve that. "I'd love to tell you, but I know you'll harass them." I can't believe it took you more than a week to come up with this ingenious reason for secrecy! Of course you have made an absolutely unwarranted, insulting, and dishonest implication about my character and intentions. Yes, I am finally getting angry about this, because of the hypocrisy. If you are OPEN and you have NO SECRETS, and you INVITE QUESTIONS, then you should GIVE ANSWERS. But getting precise or specific information is almost impossible, because, it seems to me, you are NOT really open, and you DO have secrets, and you DON'T like questions. Isn't that really what this is about? Well, okay, you can be open or secretive, either way, I don't care! Just be straightforward instead of resorting to these evasions. If you don't want to answer questions, why not be clear about this? > Next, I believe we have previously more or less cleared up the question of > CPA concentrations and comparative toxicities, and our web segments are being > made less liable to misreading. Once again I have to point out that "misreading" has nothing to do with it. You accused your competitor of using procedures that caused great damage, and now apparently this false statement has been changed. (I haven't gone to look for myself, yet.) No one "misread" anything. > Very quickly, the current Alcor CPA as used is believed to be less toxic than > the previous Alcor standard using glycerol, No, the Alcor stuff is less toxic than the solution used by YOUR organization. Let's not lose sight of that. > About cooling rates: After perfusion, CI cools slowly, using first dry ice > and then liquid nitrogen, because we have found that avoids cracking (which I > believe no one else has avoided). As to whether that is the best possible > trade-off, we can't be certain, but so far that has been our decision. This does not come close to answering my point, so, once again, I have to repeat myself. CI is using very concentrated glycerol, probably more toxic than any solution ever used by any other organization (according to various people who have been sending me emails). Consequently, the solution is more toxic than anyone else's. Do you disagree? However CI uses a rapid process of passing the glycerol through the patient. Consequently, as you have said yourself, the final concentration in the tissues is low, at least IN THE LOCATION WHERE YOU MEASURED IT. Once again I ask, is 26% an average figure, or just a point sample? You have said yourself that the solution "does not equilibrate." This means some parts are much more concentrated than others. Is that right? If so, some parts are being subjected to a heavy dose, possibly causing damage, while other parts are getting a light dose, and are not being properly protected. Is that right? If so, this seems a very strange way to protect someone from freezing. Why not use a closed circuit that has a better chance of getting a higher concentration, uniformly, into all the tissues? > Another is > to emulate Platt and Wakfer and perhaps Grimes and some others and say a pox > on all your houses, you aren't good enough and I won't deal with any of you, > so there. Thanks for rephrasing my attitude, which of course you have made as unflattering as possible. Talk about character assassination! I came here, a very short time ago, asking about the procedures that your organization uses--because your organization says it has no secrets. I admire the people who spend the time and money trying to do cryonics at a time when it seems to be a small minority interest. I am interested in CI's services in the UK. That is ALL. If you wish to answer my questions, which are extremely basic and seem relevant to the wellbeing of all your members, please do so. If you refuse to answer, please say so. Either way, please stop trying to devalue my questions by implying that I have ugly motives. This is not the kind of debating tactic that I respect, and in any case, I don't want a debate. I just want information. Jeff Grimes. PS. Sorry for the additional repetition (!) but I just noticed, no one at CI has answered the question, why don't you use Viaspan, or a similar solution, to protect the person in transit from mortician to laboratory? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15518