X-Message-Number: 6962 From: (Brian Wowk) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: A Suggestion Date: 20 Sep 96 19:03:34 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <> <> In <> Terry Lambert <> writes: >Cryonics seems (to me) to be in a very literal dilemma (di.lemma); >on one hand, it wants to preserve gross anatomical structure as >well as possible, and funds research in that direction. On the >other, it wants the suspension to be as reversible as possible -- >yet there is little research in that direction. In several posts you suggest that cryonicists have given excessive attention to structure instead of function. For the past 15 years, there have in fact been three schools of thought in cryonics: 1) Preserve people with the best medical/cryobiological technology available, with the goal of maximizing tissue viability ("function") at every step of the way. 2) Preserve people using rudimentary techniques to reduce cost, because "nanotechnology will be both necessary and sufficient" for revival of all cryonics patients. 3) Preserve people with low-maintenance methods that (hopefully) preserve basic structure only, such as chemical fixation, mummification, etc. (I hate to call this stuff "cryonics", but erstwhile cryonicists do sometimes discuss these things.) All cryonics organizations with the exception of CI follow philosophy #1, with the goal of both offering the best cryonics care and moving cryonics into the medical mainstream as fast as possible. CI has solidly advocated philosophy #2 for many years (although that appears to be changing). The only real die hard advocate of philosophy #3 is Douglas Skrecky, who posts here from time to time. As a staunch advocate of philosophy #1 for 10 years, I find it frustrating to read your belief that cryonicists are obsessed with structure. Allow me to provide a counter-example. About 10 years ago, the suggestion arose to add fixative to cryonics CPA solutions. There were excellent theoretical reasons for doing so. The suggestion even made it into Drexler's description of biostasis in Engines of Creation. Of course, the price you pay for fixing tissue is that all traces of functional viability are lost until nanotechnology can remove the fixative molecules. Cryonicists instead chose to pursue the more conservative course of continuing to use the best protocols for *preserving function*. (Staying with the gold standard of function proved to be wise as it was subsequently discovered that fixation greatly exacerbates freezing damage by an insidious mechanism.) Perfected suspended animation (of the entire body) has been the ultimate goal of school #1 cryonicists from day one. As proof I offer you the fact that NOBODY in the world can take animals down to near 0'C for longer periods of time (and still get them back) than cryonicists. This research was done by cryonicists, paid for by cryonicists, and now used by cryonicists to get cryonics patients to the point of CPA perfusion and freezing in a condition from which they could still be revived TODAY if we wanted to. >Prometheus is an >exception in this regard... Prometheus is an aggressive extension of success in the hypothermic regime to the cryothermic regime, which was the game plan school #1 cryonicists have envisioned all alone. >We can probably blame >past negelect on (1) the need to give the cryonicists *now* the >best chance of survival later... The dichotomy you describe between improving the chances of today's patients vs. future patients has never existed. >The Visser method, being a cryobiological approach (very much >like approaching nanotechnology from the other side of the >molecular barrier) intends to incrementally increase what can >be preserved. In this way, it is a second route to the more >leglected goal of cryonics -- the group goal. I think it's important we realize that Visser advanced organ preservation (if her method works at slow cooling rates), but certainly did not originate the ideas of organ preservation or suspended animation. These things were being pursued by cryonicists, and advances being made, long before she entered the field. >I have read (preliminarily) the Promtheus literature, and I have >to say brain preservation clearly implies brain preservation >as the goal, not a way-station on the road to reversible biostasis. The goal has always been (for all cryonicists) to continue with the rest of the problem once the brain is beat. This has not been explicitly stated because that goal will require time and money far beyond the original Prometheus budget. But perhaps this ultimate goal should be more explicit to avoid these misunderstandings. > Brains ar on the bottom of the list because they >can't be reliably transplanted. This implies the brain is the least important organ in the body. Suppose you roll into an emergency room suffering from severe trauma, with blood flow to multiple organs compromised. Which organ do you want blood flow and oxygenation restored to first? Do you cross clamp the common carotid or the descending aorta? The decision will determine whether you will recover as a paraplegic or brain-dead organ donor (but with good organs). The bottom line is that suspended animation of the body will have to proceed one organ at a time. It should therefore logically begin with the one and only organ that is irreplaceable. Even if you successfully preserve every organ in the body EXCEPT the brain, the technology will be totally useless for medical time travel until brain preservation is addressed. >Clearly, the goal of Prometheus is to achieve better cryonics; >there is an inherent slant of assuming a technology, specifically >vitirification, to achieve that goal, and the experimental >protocol outlined confirms the slant. The "slant" is simply a plan of action based on current cryobiological knowledge. Once the Visser method is published, it will add to that knowledge, and appropriate adjstments may be made. >According to a recent posting from the researcher (today, to this >group), apparently primary toxicity isn't an issue. Toxicity is *always* an issue when you replace half the water in a person's body with a chemical solvent (no matter how innocuous). Suffice to say that if I did this to you right now, you'd be killed instantly. It's always a question of time, temperature, and target organ. "Toxicity has not been found" is meaningless without context. *************************************************************************** Brian Wowk CryoCare Foundation 1-800-TOP-CARE President Human Cryopreservation Services http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6962