X-Message-Number: 15646
From: "Jeff Grimes" <>
Subject: Shorter List of Questions
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:52:20 +0000


Yes, we are making real progress here. After some consideration I have dropped 
not one but TWO questions from my list. However that still leaves seven 
unanswered questions which I think are quite significant and should interest 
anyone thinking about making cryonics arrangements:


1. Viaspan is widely used in medicine to preserve transplant organs temporarily.
Some cryonics organizations have used it after a person dies and is in transit 
to the cryonics facility. CI claims it is very concerned about good 
preservation, yet it does not use Viaspan. Why is this?


2. The CI web site makes "vitrification" sound like a dangerous process. In fact
it means freezing without ice damage. Also, according to Douglas Skrecky here 
on CryoNet, the glycerol that is used by CI is concentrated enough to create 
vitrification. Why does CI condemn its competitors for using vitrification, 
while CI is using a solution which is powerful enough to vitrify? Why does it 
create a deliberately misleading impression on its web site?


3. On CryoNet it has been established that CI uses a more concentrated solution 
of glycerol than has been used by any other organization, even though a 
concentrated solution is more likely to be toxic. Why is this?


4. Robert Ettinger, founder of CI, has agreed on CryoNet that the 75% by volume 
glycerol solution, used at CI, "does not equilibrate." I believe this means that
some parts of the brain are damaged by the high concentration, while it does 
not reach other parts, leaving them unprotected. One reason this happens may be 
that CI flows the solution straight through instead of recirculating it. Are 
these statements true and if so, why does CI use this very unsatisfactory 
technique?


5. Mr. Ettinger has said that the concentration of glycerol after perfusion is 
26 percent by weight. He has not said how this was measured, whether it was a 
sample at one point, or an average. Either way, I believe this is a lower 
concentration than other organizations achieve. Why does CI allow such a low 
level of protection?


6. (I asked how many photos were taken by the Canadian lab which "verified" the 
CI procedure, and I asked if the photos on the CI web site were typical. Some of
this question has been answered, more or less, although no numbers were 
included in the answer.)


7. Am I right in thinking that the "empty" areas of the photos on the CI web 
site show areas that were cleared by ice that formed and then melted? 


8. (I asked why CI won't let anyone contact the Canadian lab mentioned in 
question 6. I still suspect that CI doesn't want outsiders to check what the lab
really did, but Robert Ettinger says no, it's just a matter of principle that 
CI "protects" its lab from outsiders. Okay, it's not a very convincing answer, 
but it is an answer, so, I'll drop this question.)


9. CI has said that its system of local morticians provides faster service. CI 
has criticized another organization for taking more than 30 hours to transport 
the past four people from death bed to laboratory. CI has refused to say how 
many hours it took to move its own patients. Why will it not give this 
information? How long did it take the last four CI cases to move from death bed 
to laboratory? Does CI even have this information? (CI has now admitted that one
case took about three weeks, but the other cases remain unknown.) 


If CI refuses to answer the remaining questions, let it say so, and we will know
that the pretense of openness is just that: A pretense. On the other hand, if 
CI is as open as it claims, why won't it give any answers?

Jeff Grimes. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15646