X-Message-Number: 5497 From: (Brian Wowk) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: service in UK Date: 29 Dec 95 20:57:08 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <4c0vkp$> In <4c0vkp$> writes: >A comparison of the details of suspension services--and more importantly, of >their probable consequences--is not easy or simple, especially if one >attempts to factor in likely future developments. Needless to say, we at >Cryonics Institute do not believe that anyone else has a clear advantage >overall; but we are committed to ongoing review of all aspects of service, >and to changes when such appear clearly advantageous to our members and >patients. I'm sure Bob would agree that freezing with cryoprotectant present is better than freezing without cryoprotectant, regardless of future developments. It is a medical fact (and empirical observation while I was training as a cryonics transport tech) that poor cardiopulmonary support following cardiac arrest = poor perfusion later. Ischemic injury causes cell swelling and leukocyte plugging, compromising capillary circulation, and preventing good cryoprotective perfusion of all parts of the brain later. There will be a world of difference in the ischemic injury (and later cryoprotection) of a patient given only heparin and manual CPR (20% normal blood flow) vs. a patient given a full spectrum of cerebro-protective medications and high-impluse simultaneous compression/decompression CPR (100% normal blood flow). This difference can often be seen by observing the extent of cerebral edema that develops during cryoprotective perfusion. I would encourage Bob to consider making cranial burrholes in his cryonics patients, and observing this first hand. *************************************************************************** Brian Wowk CryoCare Foundation 1-800-TOP-CARE President Your Gateway to the Future http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5497