X-Message-Number: 15618 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:42:50 -0500 From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: Anonymous Comments re: CryoNet #15279 These comments were written originally on Jan 10, 2001 by someone whose name shall remain anonymous. The comments specifically address statements made by Robert Ettinger in CryoNet message 15279 which are marked below with the standard ">". -------------------------------------------------- >Vitrification has not arrived. Or if it has, it isn't >exactly new, even though there may now be >newer and better procedures. I commented on >reports of possible vitrification in THE PROSPECT >OF IMMORTALITY almost 40 years ago. Comment: This is a distortion. Nothing we know of in Prospect anticipates modern day vitrification at all. Realistic vitrification dates from 1980-1984, not before. To imply there has been no big change since 1964 or before is beyond ignorant. >What would be new in the Hallelujah sense is >confirmed vitrification of mammalian brains, >examined after rewarming from long term storage >temperature and showing minimal damage from >at least three standpoints--histology (microanatomy), >physiology (chemical functions), and >electrophysiology (neural net function). >This has not happened--NOT ANY PART OF >IT. Comment: First of all, sure, it would be nice to have perfected brain cryopreservation, but the lack of it does not mean that advances along the way are not worth adopting. Next, Ettinger's quibble about microscopy is based on ignorance. The 1998 21CM seminar results demonstrated complete structural preservation after conditions that faithfully represent what would have happened with vitrification with the same solutions followed by more rapid warming than could have been achieved in 1998. Further, what counts for cryonics is the state of preservation prior to warming, and this indeed was faithfully represented, and the preservation attained was unprecedentedly good. Based on comments from Pascal, and on CI's web site, the structural preservation obtained with Ettinger's method is comparatively abysmal, as would be expected. So the structural argument is over. Regarding function, 66% recovery of brain slice function was recently announced by INC, vs. ~ 0% functional recovery and poor structural preservation with techniques like Ettinger's. The testing of neural nets will come by and by. Again, the lack of that test does not mean the advances are not worth adopting. > The Alcor claim is based on evidence that >is partial, indirect, and lacking confirmation >by independent investigators. The very small >samples mentioned did not go below - 80 C (at >least - 130 C is required), Comment: Because of the details of the physics of ice, cooling to -130oC would have given identical results as cooling to -80oC, so this criticism is invalid. If the criticism were valid, the investigators involved, who understand such matters quite thoroughly, would not have done the experiment the way they did, nor would they have reported it. The experiment was designed to give a meaningful result. Also, the current solutions support the vitrification of extremely large samples, not just small ones. >and the one chemical >test applied (the potassium/sodium ratio) >showed only about 53% cell survival. Comment: That's 53% functional recovery, NOT 53% cell survival. And this has to be compared to 5 +/- 5% functional recovery after freezing to dry ice temperature (way above -130oC!) with glycerol. And it isn't 53% anymore, it's 66%. And 66% is NOT trivial. >And that was based on a solution LESS >concentrated than the one Alcor used, and was >applied to rat hippocampal slices, not to >specimens from brains given Alcor's >treatment. Comment: Ettinger's solutions are even more concentrated, and were not successfully applied to brain slices. It is virtually certain that exposing Ettinger's solutions to brain slices would result in 0% viability. A brain perfused with something very similar to the Alcor formula is awaiting structural analysis. Rome wasn't built in a day. Ettinger is right that we don't have perfected brain cryopreservation, but nobody ever claimed we did, nor can Ettinger claim his method is perfected brain cryopreservation either, or closer to it than what Alcor is doing. The point Alcor was making was that the evidence available implies that the new methods are better than the old methods. That has not been refuted. Ettinger's complaints revolve around a lack of data. The data he wants are being collected. Once they are available, none of Ettinger's criticisms will have any further relevance. Patience is a virtue. ------------------------------------------ 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=15618