X-Message-Number: 4659
From: 
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 20:11:38 -0400
Subject: p.s.

Adding to my previous post today, and responding to Mike Darwin's #4656:

1. For some readers, the main thrust of Mike's message will be his contention
that patients suspended by recent (and not so recent) BPI or Alcor methods
have a better chance of revival than patients suspended by CI methods. This
is based mainly on interpretation of micrographs as showing better
ultrastructure. However:

a) Mike agrees that there are many unresolved difficulties in intrepreting
these photos. 

b) CI sheep brains showed no cracking. Cracking may or may not be very
important, but the CI results are the only ones to date clearly showing no
cracking after rewarming from liquid nitrogen temperature. (I understand from
Mike that he and Paul Wakfer are testing CI's cooling/warming protocol to see
if that is the difference.) If cracking is very important, then--so
far--possibly CI's patients have the better of it. (My own honest opinion is
that cracking is probably not a major issue, but some others think
differently, and we just don't know.)

c) BPI or/and Alcor methods (at various stages of their development) may have
or may have had other problems. For a while, when Mike was there, Alcor
sometimes exposed its patients to alcohol, which they later admitted was a
mistake (and a not inexpensive one!). Also, if I remember correctly, Alcor
under Mike and Jerry Leaf for a while used DMSO; CI always used glycerol.
There is also the admittedly unresolved problem of glycerol toxicity, which
could cut either way; we just don't know yet.

d) It is VERY possible that nanotech or equivalent will be both necessary and
sufficient to rescue patients suspended by ANY of the methods heretofore
used, and perhaps even by straight freezing as well. In that case, all
patients have roughly equal chances, regardless of what they paid.

2. The more important question, from the point of view of prospective
patients, is who will offer the best suspension and the best overall chances
in the future--ten years hence or more for most readers.

Speaking for Cryonics Institute, I repeat that we will offer those procedures
confirmed best, either routinely or as a higher-priced option if necessary.
The confirmation, and any changes, will probably be gradual and ongoing. If
we (collectively) reach the Holy Grail of reversible-on-demand suspended
animation in my first lifetime, we will certainly offer that.

3. How  can individuals judge between various claims and interpretations? (a)
They can follow their noses or impulses or loyalties, and this is what most
will do. (b) Those so inclined can review the detailed history and indulge in
some amateur psychoanalysis. (c) Those so inclined and qualified can review
all the objective data and form their own opinions. (d) Those who can't
afford more than $28,000 can choose CI as the only available alternative,
whether or not they think it is also the best. (e) Those who can afford
anything and believe the premium price necessarily reflects the best can
choose the highest priced. 

4. Who among spokesmen is likely to be most objective and least likely to be
self-serving? The virtue of which I am proudest is my humility; I may not be
totally free of vanity or jealousy, but these have steadily diminished along
with my life expectancy. Also, having lived longer, I have probably made more
mistakes than other spokesmen. As Tevye said about being poor, making
mistakes is no disgrace but it's no great
honor either--yet it does tend to vitiate vanity, unless you are
psychopathic. 

I might also gently point out, for whatever it is worth, that CI (along with
Alcor and ACS) is nonprofit; and CI's officers and directors, including
myself, get no pay or any kind of financial benefit. People working for pay
or profit can certainly be honest--but it is just a wee bit harder, and it
becomes easier to fool yourself.

CryCare is also nonprofit, but its preferred service providers are
for-profit.

5. CI has what the unfriendly might call a small element of "communism" in
it, in that some voluntarily fund at higher levels, or/and leave CI their
estates, with no guarantee of corresponding benefits (although they do get
priority consideration in some circumstances). CryoCare uses completely
separate individual trusts, so a CryoCare member who falls a nickel short is
out of luck, at least theoretically, as I understand it. Alcor is in between,
with some older members grandfathered in at lower prices than newer members;
and many Alcor people have made donations of various kinds. 

Now, Mike favors the CryoCare approach, which some think is more in line with
Libertarian ideas. However: 

(a) CI has a fair number of Libertarians. 

(b) CI members may, if they wish, fund their suspensions at the CI minimum
and set aside separate trusts for themselves. They can even use CryoCare and
BPI, and use CI for storage. 

(c) Ideology can be very misleading, as always. When Mike was at Alcor, he
defended Alcor's "College of Cardinals" (a ruling Board that chose its own
successors) in part by noting the success of the Roman Catholic Church. He
conveniently forgot many other  salient features of the Church, such as vows
of poverty and obedience, commitment to charity, etc., not to mention dogma
and deity.  If we are looking for models ( a mostly futile endeavor), what
about the FAMILY? There's a pretty enduring institution for you. Do families
demand a penny-for-penny accounting from each member, or do they make
adjustments based both on narrow individual self-interest and on broader
self-interest that seeks the advantage of the whole family? Many of us tend
to think of Cryonics Institute as a family. It certainly isn't just another
business.  

Mae and I have prepaid our suspension fees, and in addition, after we both
die, CI will get the bulk of our estate. We don't think that is foolish or
that it will impair our chances--on the contrary.

Again, forgive the rambling. I hope I can abstain for a while.

Finally, Drs. Pichugin, Marchenko, and Shilo have sent us the tables of
results and the first part of the report on spontaneous and evoked
bioelectric activity in pieces of rabbit brain treated in various ways,
including glycerolization and cooling to liquid nitrogen temperature. We will
publish results in full in THE IMMORTALIST (probably September issue) and at
least a summary on Cryonet.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4659