X-Message-Number: 6951
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:26:14 -0700
From: (Tristan Bettencourt)
Subject: CryoNet #6937 - #6945
CryoNet - Fri 20 Sep 1996
#6937: Question to Platt [Rafi Haftka]
#6938: IS/CI/Visser research [Ettinger]
#6939: Australia law update [David Brandt-Erichsen]
#6940: Visser Method - Clarification [Michelle Olga Visser]
#6941: Cryonet #6918, 6921, 6924 and 6926 [Olaf Henny]
#6942: Re: Toxicity and support [Steve Bridge]
#6943: Annual Alcor Cryo Feast December 8, 1996 [Carol Shaw]
#6944: sold [Dave Pizer]
#6945: Re: A Suggestion [Terry Lambert]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #6937
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:01:55 -0400
From: (Rafi Haftka)
Subject: Question to Platt
I have been following only some of the discussion on sheep hearts, so that
my question may have been already answered. However, I wondered why Platt
doubts that reviving sheep hearts will be an important achievment.
Prior damage at the slaughter house will make Ettinger's task more
difficult rather than easier. If success is achieved in spite of that, it
would appear that it will be a convincing demonstration of the power of the
method.
If somebody offers to beat an opponent with one hand tied behind their back, we
may want to downgrade their chances of success, but not say that a victory
will be meaningless.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raphael(Rafi) T. Haftka < >
University of Florida Phone: (352)-392-9595
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Fax: (352)-392-7303
Mechanics and Engineering Science http://www.aero.ufl.edu/~get/
Gainesville, FL 32611-6250 Please note new area code.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #6938
From:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:10:31 -0400
Subject: IS/CI/Visser research
1. I expect soon to unsubscribe to Cryonet, so those who want to reach me
should do so directly. Those who want to keep up with CI and IS developments
and my own offerings should subscribe to THE IMMORTALIST--$25/year to the
Immortalist Society, 24355 Sorrentino Court, Clinton Township MI 48035.
2. We have been asked what donations have been made to CI or/and Alcor
recently to support Visser-related research.
There have been several promises, some of them with conditions attached.
(Naturally, we will not publicize the names.) That isn't what we want. We
want checks, now.
3. Donation psychology: People vary widely in their approaches, demands, and
expectations. My own approach as a donor is that I contribute if I think the
enterprise is worth while and the sponsors reliable; usually I don't want the
burden of making technical judgments, even if I think I have the competence.
In the role of donee (for the Immortalist Society or Cryonics Institute) I
want to minimize overhead and red tape to the absolute bone. It might or
might not pay to put out reams of plans and engage in long exchanges to
satisfy individual prospective donors about the merits of our strategy. (At
one time, as I recall, Trans Time or ACS tried a direct marketing approach
based on heavy one-to-one, or even many-to-one, salesmanship; it didn't
work.) I'm not going to do it, and unless the directors of IS or CI disagree,
we're not going to do it. Prospective donors will either accept our
broad-based plans or they will not.
4. On the importance of donations to our Visser-related research:
First, the work has begun, and will proceed, with or without donations. We
have our own money, and expect to generate more. But there is so much to be
done, and the time element could be so critical for individual prospective
patients, that it makes sense for you to donate, if you are serious about
cryonics. (IS, CI, Alcor and the Vissers, and their collaborators, and
perhaps others yet to join the Visser team, will try to coordinate research
so far as practicable. If there is some duplication, either on purpose or
accidentally, that isn't bad either, since it provides corroboration and
variation.)
5. On Platt's #6930: I'll skip some of the spin/counterspin and just
emphasize a couple of points.
He insists that, if e.g. CI exhibits a revival of a sheep heart from liquid
nitrogen to whatever responsible audience is available--journalists,
scientists, business people, students--scientists generally would not be
impressed, and even he personally would only interpret it to mean the
cryoprotectant is "very interesting stuff."
Again--the mind boggles. It would be another world first, PROVING that the
Visser technique can work with (at least some) larger organs and another
species, and he says, "Don't call it scientific research." In other words,
some minuscule report on a slight improvement in viability of red blood cells
with a variation in glycerine concentraton would be scientific research, if
it is heavily documented; but a spectacular leap in the art is not research
UNLESS it is documented according to standards of the Society for
Cryobiology.
He attempts to justify this attitude by noting, for example, that the sheep
heart would have an "unknown history and unknown amount of prior damage."
Unbelievable! With ANY history and ANY amount of prior damage, this would
still be a world first. (We would be working with a presumably healthy heart,
but if it were not, the achievement would be all the more impressive.)
Are there scientists sufficiently psycopathic to reject such evidence? Sure.
Would it be better, other things equal, to satisfy the guild's demands? Sure.
But the MAIN thing is to get the proof, if we can, and translate it into
better suspensions for our patients, in minimum time with minimum expense.
That is the bottom line.
6. (Platt again) On CryoCare's option for its members to be stored with CI,
on which Platt insisted:
This seems to be just window dressing. Since not a single CryoCare patient
has chosen storage with CI, I assume that in practice CryoCare pushes
CryoSpan.
TO REPEAT: Those who want to contribute to the Immortalist Society for
Visser-related research are encouraged to do so--right now. (Alcor will speak
for itself.) We want checks in hand, not promises. Tax deductible. Please
search your conscience and do your best.
Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
24355 Sorrentino Court
Clinton Township MI 48035
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #6939
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:21:11 -0700
From: David Brandt-Erichsen <>
Subject: Australia law update
>From The Age, Melbourne, September 19, 1996
DEATH BILL COULD HIT OTHER LAWS IN NT
By Karen Middleton, Canberra
The Northern Territory Government has cast new doubt on a federal private
member's bill designed to overturn its euthanasia laws, with legal opinions
indicating the legislation could also outlaw abortion and the switching off
of life-support machines.
The NT Attorney-General, Mr Denis Burke, this week wrote to his federal
counterpart, Mr Daryl Williams, saying he had legal opinions that indicated
the anti-euthanasia bill before the Federal Parliament could interfere with
other territory laws.
It is believed that Mr Burke is concerned about possible unintended
consequences of the federal bill, produced by a Victorian Liberal MP, Mr
Kevin Andrews, including its impact on the NT Natural Death Act and laws
allowing abortion in the territory.
Mr Burke obtained legal opinions from the NT solicitor-general, Mr Tom
Pauling, QC, the director of public prosecutions, Mr Rex Wild, and an
independent barrister that raise new concerns about the Andrews bill. All
believe it could have implications for NT law beyond the Rights of the
Terminally Ill Act 1995, which allows voluntary active euthanasia.
The concerns are believed to revolve around the use of the word
"intentional" and the possibility that this could undermine legislation that
effectively exempts some practices from being offences under the Crimes Act.
In his legal opinion, Mr Pauling says he is "not at all satisfied that
aspects of territory law will not be thrown into disarray" by the bill. The
independent barrister is believed to have stated that the Andrews bill would
not affect abortion because a foetus was not considered a "life" under law.
The new legal opinions are likely to add to the concerns of some MPs and
senators that the implications of Mr Andrews' bill could reach beyond
euthanasia and cause political division in the federal coalition. Some were
also concerned the bill could be used to piggyback amendments outlawing
abortion.
All political parties have agreed to allow a conscience vote on the issue in
Federal Parliament, but the timing of the debate and vote on the bill
remains unclear, with some coalition MPs lobbying to have it set aside.
Mr Andrews has already redrafted his bill because of fears it could affect
other NT laws. Yesterday, he issued a statement reinforcing comments he made
in Parliament that his bill was "solely about euthanasia and no other matter".
"The bill has nothing to do with abortion," Mr Andrews said. "Any suggestion
to the contrary is fanciful. If anyone attempts to amend the bill to include
abortion, I will vote against the amendment."
His statement appeared to be a response to a private letter that the MP for
the Northern Territory, Mr Nick Dondas, yesterday sent to all lower house
members and senators, which included copies of two of the legal opinions.
In his letter, Mr Dondas said he would seek to amend Mr Andrews' Euthanasia
Laws Bill 1996 to prevent further debate. The chairwoman of Right to Life
Australia, Mrs Margaret Tighe, said yesterday suggestions that Mr Andrews'
euthanasia bill would be used to affect abortion laws were "mischievous".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #6940
Subject: Visser Method - Clarification
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 17:33:30 GMT
From: (Michelle Olga Visser)
Visser method Clarification
Due to many requests for additional information about the Visser Method,
CPA, Toxicity etc, I feel obliged to CI/Alcor to make the following
disclosures:-
CI/Alcor agreement :
A pre-patent licensing / co-operation agreement was reached between
Cryopreservation Technologies cc and CI/Alcor, to apply, research and
sublicence the Visser method technology (present and future) with respect
to cryonics (only), in exchange for financial assistance (partial funding)
of pig heart(cryobiology)and organ re-implantation trials.
This is very costly, and my personal resources are not unlimited.
The has been no interest on the part of biomedical companies to fund this
research without the first scientific publication, and I would not expect
them to.
CI/Alcor are however bound by secrecy concerning detail of the technology,
as are all co-operating labs for reasons explained below, until such time
as journal publication of the technology and then disclosure is limited by
the detail of paper/s published by myself and or any of my associated
co-operating labs.
The CPA , - why the secrecy?
The CPA is as a grossly under examined, undervalued compound in most
respects. In cryogenics and cryobiology there is scope for scores of
scientists to examine "unchartered territory" and publish new material.
The cryobiological application in itself is thousands of times more
commercially viable and than the cryonics application would be (initially)
But this technology is also valuable for it's medical application/s which
is in turn many times more valuable than that of cryobiology.
Given the time limitation of the patent applications (one year),
The secrecy aspect should be abundantly clear to everyone.
Co-working arrangements:-
I have not kept the technology to myself however.
Cryobiologists, pathologists, surgeons and physicists who approached me
have shared in the technology, forming part of a larger co-operation
and information sharing "team", extending the applications of the
technology.
The door has always been open for those who would expand on the research,
as long as they fund their own research and share the detailed information.
I am happy to say that research is being conducted on all five continents
of the globe, since CI/Alcor have joined the group.
Toxicity:-
Applied per my method, their is no known toxic effects to date, nor any
reason to believe there would be.
There is however ongoing research on this aspect.
Toxicity clinical trials with humans for use of the compound as a drug are
almost completed here in SA, and results will be made available before the
end of this year.
Why CI/Alcor:?
As the founder/father of cryonics, Professor Robert Ettinger was the
obvious choice to initiate the cryonics potential of this technology.
CI/Alcor representing 70% of cryonicists, would ensure that their members
got the earliest benefit of the technology - if it proved useful to them.
CI/Alcor will do their research, with or without your donations.
When you are asked for contributions, I don't believe this is to enrich
any one, but merely a plea to help speed up testing/refining/adapting
an available technology.
I am not a cryonicist, but whatever the CPA is/is not, I believe it is far
better and much faster penetrating CPA than glycerol.
The onus now is on CI/Alcor to test and make use of this technology, but
to do so without endangering my overall program.
Why not wait until publication, then try it yourself?
The publication which will probably be published by Nov/Dec is a year
old, basic and was the result of one research teams' initial trial on
12 rat hearts.
Current technology is one year advanced and the sum of co-operating
research teams.
Why donate to CI/Alcor now?
CI/Alcor have an arrangement and access to all information, past, current
and future of our co-operation groups (with respect to cryo).
By limiting them now, because of their contractual restraints you might
quite well be limiting yourself or a close friend of a "better"
preservation.
Saul Kent's proposal is welcomed, and will be evaluated for practical
and commercial implications.
I sincerely hope this posting has placed some issues in a different
perspective for at least some of you.
Best wishes,
Olga
----
Michelle Olga Visser
CEO
Cryopreservation Technologies cc
Phone : +27 12 3541677 (W) +27 12 3310701 (H)
E-mail:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #6941
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:43:21 -0700
From: (Olaf Henny)
Subject: Cryonet #6918, 6921, 6924 and 6926
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6951