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