X-Message-Number: 341 From att!cup.portal.com!alcor Sat May 18 15:20:31 PDT 1991 To: From: Subject: On Joy Date: Sat, 18 May 91 15:20:31 PDT Message-Id: <> X-Origin: The Portal System (TM) On Joy by Mike Darwin The Alcor members on this Net might have had less reason to express their distaste instead of JOY! if Quaife had started out by other than denigrating their efforts by way of calling them can-rattlers. Regarding Brian Wowk's remarks, it should be pointed out that the information Brian brought up about the VJ suspension is a matter of public record since it was present in an article published in the AMERICAN CRYONICS JOURNAL and written by none other than Paul Segall. Apparently Art not only doesn't read CRYONICS; he doesn't even read his OWN organization's newsletter. Segall reportedly withheld ventilation of the patient because he was afraid of "getting a lethal disease...like TB from the patient's saliva." I have given mouth-to-mouth to more than one hospital or dialysis patient when I was a dialysis technician. Sometimes I've had to wipe the vomit out of the way to do so. I am not alone in this, and I consider it the duty of anyone who puts themselves on the firing line in delivering health care. I have also given CPR to an accident victim on the street where there was blood in my mouth as well as stomach contents. TB is a treatable disease and a curable one. AIDS is not well (or perhaps at all) transmitted by saliva and in any event, an 80+ year-old white, middle class woman with VJ's background is hardly likely to give you AIDS, or TB for that matter. And besides, how could anyone fail to render this aid to a friend, to someone Segall had known for years and who had reportedly even contributed generously to his research? But the point is, presumably TT knew this patient was in very poor condition. In fact, Segall's account of the suspension points out that she had been refusing food for sometime and that she was transported to the hospital from the nursing home in critical condition. If all this was so, why didn't Segall or someone have a bag-valve respirator, the heart- lung resuscitator and other equipment packed and ready to go on a moment's notice? Alcor is better prepared than that in Indianapolis! What does it take to have a few items of essential equipment stowed in your car trunk or your home so that when the call comes in you are responding with more than your bare hands and mouth? I assume this was what Brian was getting at with his questions. If you read the Segall account of this suspension in the ACS Journal you don't need Mike Darwin to use you as a stalking horse to ask them some pretty pointed questions. You only need to know enough about how things SHOULD be done in order to ask questions. Since Quaife is promoting TT and promoting the quality of suspension services they offer, I don't think it is inappropriate to have such questions put to him -- or, what's more, for him to answer them. Regarding Quaife's latest posting on the Segall hamster brain work, a number of things need to be said. First, I have seen the color photocopies being circulated. There is no detailed explanation of the protocol used on either the experimental or the control (supposedly 3M glycerol brain). However, a picture IS worth a thousand words. Both photos disclose adjacent skeletal muscle, skin and bone which has the waxy, oily appearance of tissue permeated with a polyalcohol such as propylene glycol, glycerol, etc. Also, the tissues are dehydrated; especially the brain in the lower frame which supposedly was treated with the new, improved protocol. This tells me that the animal could not have had the cryoprotectant agent(s) (CPA) completely or even largely removed before blood reperfusion. Also, the large brain pial (surface) vessels in the "improved" picture show filling defects on several areas of the cortex. The presence of significant (i.e., visible) amounts of CPA in the tissue raises questions about the validity of the entire experiment. Much of the art of cryopreservation involves careful removal of the CPA following thawing so that osmotic injury does not result from the removal protocol. I have another problem with this work in that the injury to the 3M glycerol brain looks far worse than we've seen, but more to the point, it is far worse than other researchers' published work indicates it should be, such as Suda's work with cat brains using lower, less protective concentrations of glycerol and cooling to even lower temperatures (Suda, I. et al., "Bioelectric discharges of isolated cat brain after revival from years of frozen storage," BRAIN RES 70:527 (1974)). And it is certainly not consistent with the relatively good histological preservation observed by Fahy and Crane (Fahy, G.M. and Crane, A.M., "Histological cryoprotection of the rabbit brain with 3M glycerol," CRYOBIOLOGY, 21:704 (1984)) wherein the tissue WAS examined by light microscopy for histological integrity. I agree with Max More completely: the acid test is ultrastructural preservation as evaluated by electron microscopy. It would be helpful and improve the credibility of the work tremendously if there was a disclosure of the detailed protocols used to prepare these brains. At a minimum it would be useful (and it could hardly be said to be proprietary) to know the exact conditions under which the CONTROL brain was prepared. Critical questions to know the answers to would be the method and rate at which glycerol was introduced (i.e., by passes of fixed concentration or by use of a "ramp" at "X" mM/min.). The terminal concentration of glycerol reached in the brain, or at least in the venous effluent, the composition of the carrier solution (i.e., base perfusate), the pH, temperature of perfusion, flow and cooling rates, and so on. Glycerol's penetration is critically dependent upon the temperature of introduction, and of course many other factors such as pH, and the choice of colloid can have an enormous impact on results, including on the integrity of the capillary bed. Quaife is a Ph.D. who presumably has been trained as a scientist. He should know that it is not responsible behavior to make important scientific claims, particularly claims that involve life or death matters, without fully documenting the experimental work and being responsive to reasonable and salient questions; even if you have a personal dislike for the questioner(s). Neither Segall nor Quaife is a Fermat and a "note in the margin" doesn't cut it where people's lives are at stake. Failure to make such disclosures leaves one open to a number of charges and suppositions, none of which are very rosy to contemplate, and more to the point, do little to maximize the JOY that Dr. Quaife, and the rest of us, want out of life. Thanks to Simon Levy for his vigorous support and for his observations about blaming the victim. I am also a strong believer in never giving the "consent of the victim" either. Thus, if I, (and perhaps some others in Alcor), seem a bit harsh it is only because we have learned the hard way that a passive approach doesn't work. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=341