X-Message-Number: 7433
From: 
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:46:38 -0500
Subject: #7415 etc.

Cryonet# 7415 was from Saul Kent, but signed by Darwin, Harris, and Wowk.

The information in it was welcome. Thank you.

I cannot comment on the accuracy--or inaccuracy--of their references to the
Visser technology. However, some readers may have the wrong impression that
CI has switched favor from the Visser methods to vitrification. No, we are
still vigorously pursuing Visser-related work, along with collaborators
including Dr. Pichugin, Alcor, and others. 

Whether Visser-related techniques, or vitrification, or some combination, or
something altogether different, will eventually dominate the scene, remains
to be seen. But it remains a striking fact that the Visser method produced
rat hearts beating after rewarming from liquid nitrogen, which no previous
method had done. This doesn't prove anything beyond the fact itself, but it
provides motivation for us to conduct further investigations, which we are
doing.

The work being done at 21st Century Medicine and BioPreservation is certainly
impressive in its scope and vigor, as is the amount of money being spent, and
I hope the results are commensurate. 

Unfortunately, some readers may wonder why they should bother to donate money
for research, when such substantial amounts are already being spent--in
addition to the even larger amounts funding Naval Medical Research Institute
work. How can your or my little contribution make a noticeable difference?
The answer, in part, is the old one--that lots of little donations add
up--and in part it lies in the differences of approach of the various
investigators.

Mrs. Visser broke new ground, despite being  relatively inexperienced and
underfunded. The "basement" or "garage" inventor or researcher will not
always--and indeed may seldom--beat out the big-time teams, but one can never
be sure where fresh ideas may lead, especially in a field like cryobiology
(or anti-senescence!) which is still pretty much of a wild frontier. A
donation, for example, to the Immortalist Society research fund (tax
deductible) carries no guarantee of effectiveness--but the effect just might
be greatly disproportionate to the amount of the contribution.

Possibly the workers at 21st C.M. and BPI may beat out the NMRI team that has
much better credentials and even more money. Perhaps Mrs.Visser and
collaborators will beat out both, despite mixed credentials and less money
(so far). Or, more likely, all will make contributions and there will
eventually be some kind of synthesis, or maybe different approaches for
different circumstances. Or perhaps one of the players will make some capping
discovery that will return most of the rewards for only a fraction of the
total work. Perhaps this and that--the main thing is to keep at it, more work
and more money. If my carcass has to be frozen, I don't care (much) who gets
the lion's share of credit for a more effective procedure.

As I read #7415, it constitutes (among other things) a commendably frank
admission that there are still plenty of problems in the way of
vitrification. This doesn't mean anyone should weaken in his support of such
work; it does mean (again) that we should not make the pessimist's mistake,
either--not recognizing that even crudely frozen people DO have a
non-negligible chance of rescue, with all that implies. It's a strait way
between complacency and pessimism, but we have to walk that narrow path, the
path of realism.

Despite all the renewed efforts and tantalizing near-successes, sober
reflection tells us it may STILL be many years or decades before we have
full-fledged suspended animation, reversible on demand--or even before we
know for sure what the correct criteria of survival may be! (Most do not even
acknowledge this as a problem.)  We must do all we can, but concede nothing
to the pessimists.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7433