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