X-Message-Number: 15749 From: "Jeff Grimes" <> Subject: Vitrification etc. Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:33:49 +0000 Mr. Ettinger says: > I have repeatedly asked Alcor and consultants for > information, privately and publicly This is the first time I've seen him mention this, at least in the time I have been reading CryoNet. If he did contact Alcor and ask for clarification, why didn't he say so before? Why didn't he tell us what they told him? Why did he make statements that were just guesses, and then draw damaging conclusions? Why did we have to wait a month for Hugh Hizon at Alcor to correct all the misunderstandings that Mr. Ettinger kept disseminating here? For instance here are some Ettinger quotes. From CryoMessage 15249: "Alcor claims excellent structural preservation for its current procedure (based on incomplete and indirect evidence), while admitting that only about half the cells survived one functional test, that test using a less concentrated solution." If he had contacted Alcor they could have told him that "only about half the cells survived" was not a correct statement. The correction about the meaning of "viability" was made on CryoNet a couple of weeks later. From CryoMessage 15301: "Alcor's solution is probably more toxic than the solution tested by INC et al which showed 53% viability." I believe this turned out to be incorrect as well. Much worse statements were on the CI web site but have apparently been toned down, so I can't quote the originals any more. However the web site still contains a very long, carefully worded put-down that creates as much fear and doubt as possible by carefully worded scare sentences such as this: "It is true that vitrification reduces ice damage. So does embalming, or pickling in alcohol, but we don't use those methods, because the overall damage is clearly greater." Comparing vitrification to embalming or pickling in alcohol! Nice one, Bob! "It takes no great insight to realize that the damage done to a human brain through those processes, or this new process, must be greater than what is indicated under the ideal lab conditions of INC's research." Who says it must be greater? Bob says. Of course he doesn't quote anyone close to the work. Mr. Ettinger goes on: > But CI uses only procedures that we ourselves have > tested and that have been evaluated by unbiased > professionals. This is misleading, because CI has only "evaluated" its procedures relative to each other. In other words CI has tried three (?) different techniques that it invented itself, and asked an outside lab to say which is best. CI has not had its procedures evaluated relative to other people's procedures. I don't see that this kind of evaluation is worth much. Lastly in response to my comment that CI hasn't bothered to try the $99 ice blocker: > As repeatedly mentioned, our understanding from Alcor > consultants is that the > ice blocker is useful only in conjunction with the secret > and unavailable new CPA. This is simply NOT TRUE. If Mr. Ettinger believes this, then he hasn't bothered to read the 21st Century Medicine web site or the articles that were published. Now, listen carefully, Bob! The ice blocker can be used to enhance the effects of glycerol. There are photos showing a glycerol solution that forms ice crystals without the ice blocker, and virtually no ice crystals with the ice blocker. Haven't you looked at these photos, Bob? How can he claim to be an authority on this subject when he makes such basic errors? Once again I suggest he isn't really interested in this stuff, because he believes nanotechnology will sort it all out anyway. Jeff Grimes. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15749