X-Message-Number: 3090
Subject: CRYONICS:Miscellaneous answers
From: (Charles Platt)
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 94 01:57:35 EDT
Some brief responses. Some of these may seem like quibbles,
but I feel they are important for the sake of accuracy.
-----
Robert Ettinger writes:
> Medications that might mitigate the effects of warm ischemic time are
> fine--if legal and affordable--but they will almost certainly not affect the
> patient's chances in any significant way.
I see no hard evidence to support this, and therefore, I
think the phrase "almost certainly" is not appropriate.
Personally, I think it is vital to mitigate the effects of
warm ischemia, since this can basically make a difference
between brain structure and no brain structure.
> Meanwhile, there is evidence that CI procedures
> produce no visible cracking
As has been noted in a previous post, this statement refers
to naked-eye inspection only. As I understand it, microscopy
has not yet been used to verify this claim. We look forward
to the results with some anticipation.
-----
Dave Pizer writes:
> In other words, there are a lot more changes in one's brain AFTER
> the temperature drops below the freezing point then before.
Do you have evidence to support this statement, Dave? I
really don't think anyone can be certain about this.
> Knowing
> what happens after sheep brains are frozen is much more valuable than
> knowing what happens to dog brains before they are meerly washed out.
I believe both pieces of knowledge are equally valuable. The
dog washout work has relevance in an endeavor where patients
who have been declared legally dead are routinely transported
thousands of miles after blood washout, before being frozen.
> In addition, let's not forget Ettinger stores his patients in a much
> safer environment than Harris and company and for a more reasonable
> figure than Harris and company.
Dave is speaking very loosely here. "Harris and company" is
not a meaningful statement, since Steve Harris does not have
a company and is affiliated only with BioPreservation, which
does not store patients, but merely transports, perfuses, and
cools them.
Dave seems to lump his competitors into one group even though
they have "unbundled" cryonics services into totally separate
organizations. Ironically, it was Mark Voelker, a good friend
and colleague of Dave, also an Alcor director, who suggested
unbundling originally. Its implementation in the companies
CryoCare, CryoSpan, and BioPreservation is not merely
cosmetic. Paul Wakfer makes decisions about CryoSpan (the
storage company) entirely on his own. BioPreservation is
managed by Mike Darwin, who defends his independence with
some tenacity. ACS, a competitor of CryoCare, has hired
CryoSpan and BioPreservation as independent providers.
CryoCare is free to use their services or shop elsewhere, and
one of our directors has been negotiating with Robert
Ettinger so that we can offer our members storage with his
organization if they prefer it. In short, real competition
between service providers does exist. We would in fact be
happy to offer our members storage at Alcor, if Alcor would
agree. We believe that our members should be able to choose
from as many options as possible.
It is true of course that the earthquake risk at CryoSpan in
Rancho Cucamonga is higher than at Mr. Ettinger's location in
Michigan. Dave seems to forget, however, that the risk of an
earthquake at Alcor's location in Arizona is *also* higher
than in Michigan. This may or may not be relevant, since
there are many different factors to consider when deciding on
the best location for storage, and earthquakes are a disaster
which one can plan for. Recently, I believe Paul Wakfer, at
CryoSpan, finalized some very detailed plans for protection
of patients in an earthquake area. I will leave Paul to speak
about this for himself, since I don't know all the details.
-----
David Cosenza writes:
> Personally, I'd prefer to have my brain subjected to "ma¤ana-style" cryonics
> in Arizona as you refer to it, as opposed to a "Kervorkian-style" suspension
> in Rancho Cucamonga!! If you want to apply a greater degree of risk to your
> suspension that's your business, but I think those who count on their
> organization to get them through to the future would be well-advised to do
> otherwise.
David, please could you explain the meaning of "Kervorkian-
style"? As I'm sure you are aware, no patient has died in (or
near) the operating room at Rancho Cucamonga. The
implications of your statement seem untrue, grossly
misleading, and libelous to me.
Could you also define what you mean by "a greater degree of
risk"? Are you referring to earthquake risk affecting patient
storage, or what? Clarification would be helpful,
assuming you are able to supply it.
--Charles Platt
#####################################################################
Charles Platt / 1133 Broadway (room 1214) / New York / NY 10010
/ phone 212 929 3983
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3090