X-Message-Number: 18635
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:01:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: once again...

Bob Ettinger, whose skepticism regarding vitrification remains
undiminished by countless explanations, reports, and photographs, writes:

"It may turn out that the best feasible 'vitrification" procedure (or
something approaching vitrification) is not much better than the best
feasible freezing procedure."

On what evidence is this statement based? What is the value of speculation
that exists merely to create as much doubt as possible? Presumably it
benefits CI, because CI doesn't offer vitrification. But does it benefit
cryonics, and the potential willingness of this community to support
cryonics research?

"Further, the questions of cost, and of laboratory vs. field conditions,
may make 'vitrification' available only in theory and seldom in practice."

There are many wealthy people in cryonics who might value the opportunity
to be preserved without significant ice damage. Incidentally, why the
quote marks around "vitrification"? The term has been defined countless
times, in academic journals among other sources. Are the quote marks
intended to make the procedure seem more speculative, less valid?

"To elaborate slightly on that, we recall reports that rabbit kidney
vitrification failed to achieve viability--after many years of
effort--because a sufficiently uniform perfusion had not been achieved."

As Bob is well aware (assuming he reads his own posts, which of course may
not be true), the viability has been expressed as a percentage figure.
There was a long debate over this very point, where Bob turned out to have
made an incorrect assumption. To say now that the kidney was "not viable"
is a grossly misleading statement. The kidney was certainly capable of
functioning as a kidney, as I recall. By what measure does Bob claim that
this made it "not viable"?

"These were tiny little organs in healthy young animals. We are working
with human brains, very much larger and more complicated, from people
usually old and sick, with impaired circulation."

This of course is true. I regret it was preceded with the half-truths.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18635