X-Message-Number: 21953 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:30:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: Cryosummit etc. David Pascal is indeed correct, the "Cryosummit" at CI was a feelgood event--except of course for the two people who were told not to attend. (I was one of them.) I guess feelgoodism has its limits. Also, I don't think the Cryosummit was actually an Ettinger idea, was it? Anyway, the feelgoodness of any feelgood event does tend to dissipate in time, and this event was no exception. As I have noted, Tim Freeman was invited to visit a couple of Alcor cases, but in the most recent CI cases, so far as I know, no invitation was forthcoming. Since I have reason to believe that one of these cases was in LA, where we have our premiere volunteer standby team, I believe we could have had someone at the site before CI was able to do so, and we might have been able to help, rather than merely observe. However, no one on our side was notified, and in the public summary of what I believe was this case, Ettinger didn't even name the state where it occurred--perhaps because he knew we would immediately ask why we weren't invited? I regret that I have to speculate so much here, but like any Kremlinologist, I am forced to work from meager data when I try to figure out what is going on at CI. To give you an example of the problems faced when we attempt to get even basic facts, consider these two paras from the CI web site: --- > Another Patient Feb. 2, 2003 The Cryonics Institute received its 46th human whole body patient, one of our most senior members, who died of a combination of health problems. The member was washed out and perfused by a local mortician who had been previously trained, equipped, and supplied. The member died under hospice care, with good cooperation from all involved. > CI Recieves New Patient In First-Time Collaboration With SAI Feb. 21, 2003 In its second case this February, the Cryonics Institute received its 47th patient, and the first one involving a collaboration with Suspended Animation Inc. The case was another death-bed membership and barely under the wire. SAI had people at the hospital, in Florida, for a day or two before death. --- Now, is this opaque, or what? David Pascal cites the detailed report written by Ben Best, describing an earlier CI case, but he does not dispute my belief that Ben's report is unique in CI's history. So far as I know, it remains the only occasion on which anyone has described what CI does in a CI case. The rest are shrouded in mystery, and as I noted in my previous post, mystery is antithetical to scientific progress. If we do not communicate, we do not learn. Uncle Bob always tells people to go look at the CI web site for procedural details, but I already tried that, and discovered the following: "After washout and perfusion, the patient is wrapped in a sleeping bag, tagged, and cooled down further, taking about a week to dry ice temperature and another week to liquid nitrogen temperature. These periods were chosen because they produce no discernible cracking, either to the naked eye or to the microscope. Other methods had always produced cracking. In the context of future repair technology, cracking may not be a big deal, but naturally we prefer to avoid it if we can. " But in another section titled "What's New" I found a different recipe: "After further investigation and experimental study, CI has shortened its dry ice cool-down phase for patients to two days. It is expected that this will result in improved patient conditions and care. " From this it *seems* that CI has abandoned a years-long intransigent position in which it insisted that slow cooling from 0 degrees Celsius downward was an "anti-cracking" protocol, even though toxic and destructive chemical reactions remain active in this period. Years ago, when I raised this issue and suggested that CI was allowing damage to occur by inflicting slow initial cooling, I was excoriated by Ettinger and Pascal, who claimed that their own unspecified research verified that slow cooling was infinitely superior. Now apparently CI has finally backed away from its former position, possibly under the influence of Yuri Pichugin, who is a conventionally qualified cryobiologist. Robert Ettinger was always dismissive of conventional cryobiologists until he hired one of his own. Maybe they have their uses after all. I am not suggesting that any organization administers "ideal" protocol. There are too many variables and not enough feedback. Also, mistakes are made, from which we may hope to learn--but only if we admit them. (See the most recent issue of Alcor News in www.alcornews.org archives for a discussion of some mistakes which we may have made in a recent case. Can we hope to find a similar discussion of CI mistakes sometime soon, David? Personally I regard slow initial cooling as rather a classic CI mistake, which continued for perhaps a decade, but you may disagree.) The bottom line is, cryonics is a very imperfect science. So long as we refuse to admit this, the imperfections will tend to remain. This is why I believe that all organizations will ultimately benefit from frank disclosure. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21953