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