X-Message-Number: 17463 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:43:19 -0400 Subject: James Swayze, and A Question From Gary Tripp From: Gary Tripp wrote: >> As one of the original pledgers I stand by my original pledge and increase it by $1000. I would like to be updated as to any changes in James's health in real time. << As regards the increase, that is excellent and generous and I can't say enough in terms of thanks and appreciation. Every dollar makes a difference. A thousand brings us much, much closer. I wish could be as upbeat about James' health, but as far as that goes, he's been having some problems recently. It does not seem to be life-threatening, but given his already precarious condition, of course we're concerned. Apart for being quadriplegic, James also is partially blind, has only one kidney, I believe, and suffers from diabetes. It does look as though he's going to pull through this time. But, he may not do so every time, which is why there's a bit of urgency in trying to raise money to fund his suspension. Again, probably the best thing anyone can do for James (apart from donating) is to mention his situation and CI's fund-raising efforts to others. Not everybody reads Cryonet, and there must be a lot of people in the cryonics movement who'd be willing to help if they knew. Gary also wrote: >> I have a question for Robert: when do you expect to improve CI's protocol and will this require additional funding? I'm thinking of the new ice blockers of 21 CM in addition to flushout, ramped re-perfusion, and the administration of meds after artificially restoring circulation immediately following clinical death. << I'm not Robert, but can I toss in some remarks? These are good questions, but just a little bit behind the times. CI has already been having its protocols reviewed by independent Canadian labs for several months, and changes and improvements have already been made. When does CI intend to adopt ramping, for instance? We already ramp, and have been doing so for some time. Regarding the use of ice blockers, it's been established that ice blocker usage is only advisable when doing vitrification. Outside vitrification, it can be much more damaging than helpful. Ben Best wrote a very thorough technical article on this point in last month's Immortalist. I think it may be available on his web site at http://www.benbest.com. If not, I'll try to get it scanned and posted on CI's Immortalist page at http://www.cryonics.org/info.html. Regarding the administration of medications after clinical death -- well, addressing *that* one is complicated enough to require a six-part essay. Briefly, CI thinks you should test things before you try them on human beings, and with pre-meds there are dozens of possibly useful (and, in the context of cryonics, possibly useless) medications, in thousands of possibly useful (and possibly useless) combinations to consider. Testing them all is, in the short term, impossible. Plus there's the problem of context: medications that might be useful for an East European patient facing twenty hours of transport, might be superfluous for patients who die in a hospice ten minutes from CI. I don't know that there will ever be an 'ideal mix' applicable to all situations, and so reasonable disagreements as to what medications or combination of medications are best will probably be ongoing. Since complicated approaches can be time-consuming and hence destructive to the patient, CI tends to prefer a minimal approach (though it does, of course, use some preparations such as like heparin). -- *But*, that may change depending on tests and the recommendations of CI's new Head of Research, Dr. Yuri Pichugin. In short: stay tuned. As far as additional funding for suspensions goes, none of the improvements in conventional glycerol perfusion seem to require it. Once CI begins offering vitrification, which is an option it's actively pursuing, prices for that particular treatment may be higher. We'll have to see. David Pascal Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17463