X-Message-Number: 2933
Date: 22 Jul 94 23:58:40 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS Trusting Reports

To: CRYONET


     I wish this comment not to be taken the wrong way.  It is not a
comment concerning Bob Ettinger's trustworthiness.  There truly is no more
dedicated and trustworthy a cryonicist than Bob.  However, I feel compelled
to point out the relationship of a comment which he made in CRYOMSG #2928
to exactly what Mike Darwin and Thomas Donaldson have been saying about
giving full details and methods of all experiments.

>From Bob:

>(We didn't trust anybody's reports or recommendations, ---

Reports of the results of experiments may only be verified as trustworthy
when they are written up with the full details on equipment used,
experimental method followed, and all raw measurements taken.  Only then
can one examine the experiment critically to ascertain if important
variables were ignored, measurements made incorrectly, by equipment
inappropriate to the task, etc.  This also is the only possible method
which could allow reproducability of the results (an necessary step before
any result is to be fully "trusted").

Experiments done in the past by Alcor/Jerry Leaf/Mike Darwin/Hugh Hixon and
currently by Cryovita/21CM/BioPreservation ARE fully documented in this
fashion.  They CAN therefore be critically reviewed by knowledgeable peers
and if found to survive such critical review (and it is thorough), they
should be able to be reproduced.

What Bob gives us once again in this very message explaining his rationale
for his sheep work (and which ironically contains the above quote) is more
of the same inexact, undetailed (and, I'm sad to say, therefore
UNTRUSTWORTHY AND ESSENTIALLY UNUSEABLE) statements such as:

>We looked primarily for minimum edema and maximum uptake of glycerol.

>We found that most of the chemical additives recommended made no
>perceptible difference, except mannitol, which did tend to reduce edema.
>We also found that an initial high concentration of glycerol seemed to do
>better than ramping up ...

BY WHAT CRITERIA?
WHAT EXACT METHOD WAS USED, SO THAT ONE MIGHT DUPLICATE THE RESULTS?
WHAT WAS MEASURED AND BY WHAT EQUIPMENT?
WHERE IS THE OBJECTIVE RAW DATA FOR US TO CRITICALLY REVIEW?

If this detail is available please supply it.  If it has never been
produced, then I don't see how, for the reasons very well explained by
Thomas Donaldson, that you can TRUST YOUR OWN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. 

-- Paul Wakfer --

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2933