CryoNet #32618 - #32625

CryoNet - Mon 14 Jun 2010

    #32618: The Myth Regarding Medical Professionals and Cryonics [Melody Maxim]
    #32619: Re: The Enduring Myth of One Quick Promotional Fix [David Stodolsky]
    #32620: Promotional Fixes / Public Relations [Melody Maxim]
    #32621: Quick fixes etc [Ettinger]
    #32622: Technological inevitabilism [MARK PLUS]
    #32623: Study Reveals How Suspended Animation  [Eisab]
    #32624: David and John [Charles Platt]
    #32625: toxicologists and organic solvent toxicity [oberon]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32618%2D32625

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32618
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:17:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: The Myth Regarding Medical Professionals and Cryonics

John de Rivaz (Message 32614) writes: "I have a horrible suspicion that firms and individuals willing to participate could not be found, and/or that the figures would not add up..."

These are myths, perpetuated by the status quo. As an example: When I (a perfusionist, who was willing to work in cryonics) was first hired, at Suspended Animation, I suggested we contract with a South Florida group, which provides per diem perfusionists. My idea was that I would be available for call, all the time, with the exception of my four weeks of vacation, per year, and SA could pay the per diem group to fill in for those four weeks. That way, SA would have a professional perfusionist on call 24/7, 52 weeks a year. I was told, "Real medical professionals won't work with us," (a statement I found somewhat insulting). Not long after I resigned, I raised a public ruckus when SA sent three people, who had no medical experience, whatsoever, to perform a washout, (a perfusion procedure).
  Subsequently, SA contracted with the very same group I had previously suggested. Like me, those perfusionists were willing to work in cryonics. (To the people who will respond with how expensive SA's current arrangement is, and how the perfusion group will only respond to a cryonics case if they have someone available, that was never the suggestion I made. The suggestion was to have one full-time perfusionist and to pay for a per diem perfusionist to be there, four weeks a year.)

I am a medical professional, who was willing to work in cryonics. I thought cryonics sounded interesting, and I looked at the position at SA as an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of something very exciting. In fact, I left an accelerated academic program, in which I was working toward a second BS degree, to work at SA. I worked in open-heart surgery for nearly a decade. I know many people who are competent at performing the tasks of paramedics, and quite a few people capable of performing vascular cannulations and perfusion. If the experience I had, working in cryonics, had been a good one, I would have certainly reached out to some of my friends and acquaintances. Instead, I had to fight for every suggestion I made, and deal with a lot of subversive activities which seemed desig
 ned to prevent significant changes from being made.

Mr. de Rivaz' suggestion to "get a list of firms and qualified individuals willing to participate and a schedule of costs...(t)hen compare this to the salaries that are being paid to the people Melody considers unsuitable, and put this to the LEF, and see if they would be interested in altering their grant structure," isn't realistic. That's not how it works, (especially at this point, after there have been so many accusations of unethical and unprofessional behavior). A medical professional calling a professional acquaintance up, saying, "Hey, I've been working with these great people, who are open to suggestions, regarding equipment and professionals, and we're making great progress. The work is related to the work we did, in surgery; the pay is comparable, the benefits are great; and fo
 r the time being, there's only a handful of cases each year," might get a few initial takers, who would then reach out to fellow professionals. As it is, I wouldn't ask anyone to relive my experiences at SA, and I don't think it is realistic to think a medical professional is going to be able to recruit a team, with something so speculative as approaching LEF with a plan for LEF to oust their "loyal" employees and consultants, (again, especially in light of the abundance of negative publicity, much of it which traces back to LEF-funded individuals and companies).

As for the money, there is more than enough. According to Alcor's and LEF's forms 990, Alcor and SA's combined expenses for 2008 were in excess of $2.7 million dollars. For the money they are spending, these two companies could easily buy new, state-of-the-art medical equipment, every year, and pay professionals to do procedures. (I'm not suggesting new equipment every year, as that would be absurd, just noting the excessive expenditures.)

The problem lies in a reluctance to rid the industry of people in positions of power, who haven't accomplished much, and who have been publicly exposed for engaging in unethical and unprofessional activities. Some of these people don't want progress; they want the never-ending DIY projects to continue, indefinitely. For as long as these people remain, every medical professional who does happen to gain employment, in cryonics, is likely to be met with the same resistance I was. At some point, the professional will realize he/she is not going to make any headway and will either; (a) decide the patients are "dead already," and keep collecting a healthy paycheck, while not having to do more than a few cases a year; (b) walk away and never look back, or (c) walk away in disgust and attempt to m
 ake the public aware of what they have witnessed.

Melody Maxim

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32618

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32619
Subject: Re: The Enduring Myth of One Quick Promotional Fix
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:48:39 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 13 Jun 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> 
> David Stodolsky writes: "If the marketing strategy was updated, then
> we would be looking forward to having about a third of the population
> signed up."
> 

> You are aware perhaps that the Omni Immortality Contest, about 15
> years ago, offered free cryopreservation arrangements to the winner,
> who merely had to write a 500-word essay explaining why he or she
> wanted to be cryopreserved. 

The key figure is that a third of those that did respond indicated they would choose suspension as their prize. 

> 
> 
> To me, a big problem in cryonics is that enthusiasts such as yourself
> persist in imagining that one "quick fix" can change everything. 

What I proposed was a three million Euro project, taking several years, in order to develop a new marketing strategy, a new financing method, and a way to gain political power over key resources needed for optimal standby. The new financing method would make suspension economically neutral, after taxes, thereby accommodating the third of the population estimated above. 

However, current marketing doesn't even begin to approach the problem in an effective manner:


Andreasen (1995) offers a simple way of distinguishing civically oriented informational efforts that fail from those that succeed in their efforts. He distinguishes effective from ineffective social marketers in several ways. Five of these ways are as follows.


1. Effective: 'The organization's mission is seen as bringing about behavior change by meeting the target market's needs and wants'.

   Ineffective: 'The organization's mission is seen as inherently good'.


2. Effective: The customer is seen as someone with unique perceptions, needs, and wants to which the marketer must adapt. 'The assumption is made that customers have very good reasons for what they are doing'.

   Ineffective: Customers are the problem. Here, the customer (or in the case of deliberation, citizens) are 'seen as the source of the problem. The customer is seen as deficient in one of two ways.

   Ignorance. Because the social marketer knows what a good idea it is to practice safe sex or put campfires out carefully, he or she assumes that the reason other people don't do this is that they simply do not know how desirable the marketer's favorite behavior is. Customers who are not complying are just too ignorant of the virtues of the proposed action'.

   Lack of Motivation. Every once in a while, social marketers who are convinced that customer ignorance is the main source of their lack of success are confronted by research data showing that customers are not all as ignorant as the marketers thought. They then turn to their backup explanation: the real problem must be a character flaw'.


3. Ineffective: 'Marketing research has a limited role'. 'Formative research (before the campaign gets underway) is typically limited to finding out the extent of consumer ignorance or apathy... But they do not look at what customers want, what they actually do, or what is keeping them from acting'.

   Effective: Marketing research is vital. '[I]n evaluating overall program, good social marketers look to long-run behavioral impact and not to such potentially transient factors as information learned or attitudes changed... [to] give some assurance that there will be effects lasting well beyond the limited span of the social marketing program'.


4. Ineffective: 'Customers are treated as a mass'. Organizers 'tend not to see the need for segmenting consumers into meaningful subgroups... They tend to treat customers as a mass, saying things like 'We want to reach everyone with our program', or to divide their customers into two of three elementary segments (men and women, urban and rural, young and old) and treat them essentially all alike with 'the one best approach'.

   Effective: Customers are grouped in segments.


5. Ineffective: 'Competition is ignored'. Organizers 'seldom really get inside the heads of their target consumers... Now, if you mention this to [an organizer], the response will probably be something like 'Well the competition is the consumer's ignorance and lack of motivation'. But this attitude both misses the point and is patronizing to consumers. Target consumers in most behavior-change situations have very good reasons for maintaining the behavior patterns they have held-often for a lifetime. As experience has shown, a great many of these behavior patterns are not the result of ignorance but of conscious choice'.

   Effective: Competition is seen to be everywhere and never ending.



(The above quoted from pages 66-67 of:
Lupia, A. (2009). Can Online Deliberation Improve Politics? Scientific Foundations for Success In Todd Davies and Seeta Pena Gangadharan (eds.). Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.)


Reference:

Andreasen, A. R. 1995. Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development, and the Environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 


A review of mails to this List will show that the dominant view is that 'The [cryonics] organization's mission is seen as inherently good', 'Customers are the problem' because they are ignorant or unmotivated, 'Marketing research has a limited role' - actually none, 'Customers are treated as a mass', and 'Competition is ignored', except for self-distructive infighting - The Movement has not even identified what market it is competing in. So, we can conclude that the amateurism in marketing has succeeded in choosing five out of five ineffective strategies, virtually guaranteeing failure.



>  And promoting
> cryonics is extremely difficult, mainly because, almost anyone can see
> that cryonics doesn't work yet. 

Tell it to the Pope.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32619

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32620
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:24:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Promotional Fixes / Public Relations

Charles Platt chides David Stodolsky for imagining a "quick fix." The suggestions I made, which Mr. Stodolsky was supporting, had nothing to do with a "quick fix." With the damage that has been done to the public image of cryonics, over the years, it would take a significant amount of effort to convert the entire industry to professionals using state-of-the art equipment.

In regard to the Omni contest, I would assume most of the readers were unfamiliar with existing medical procedures upon which cryonics should be based. If I were to walk out in a public place, today, and tell strangers I have cooled dozens of people to a state of death, (some of them "dead," with most of the blood drained from their bodies, for more than an hour), so that surgeons could perform repairs on their ascending aortas, and that many of these patients survived, most people would probably not believe me. Yet, this type of procedure has been successfully performed, for more than half a century. Throw in the many accusations of alleged unethical, unprofessional, and illegal activities, related to cryonics, coupled with the fact that most of the key players remain the same, no matter 
 how many times they are publicly exposed, and is it any wonder most people won't take cryonics seriously? The public needs to be educated about cryonics, but this is unlikely to be accomplished by the people currently in positions of power, in cryonics, because many of them are seriously lacking in credibility.
 
I can't believe Mr. Platt would even comment on "(f)inding stable, trustworthy people to perform field work (being) very difficult." Do Mr. Platt's definitions of "stable" and "trustworthy" fit the conventional definitions of those terms, or do the mean someone who is willing to go along with, and cover up for, questionable cryonics activities? Does "stable" mean someone who will "go along to get along," no matter how ridiculous a company's projects might be? Does "trustworthy" mean people who will shred documents and delete computer files, hide projects someone might have valid objections to, or allow their superior to use their email address for his political agendas?

Mr. Platt also writes that "...promoting cryonics is extremely difficult, mainly because, almost anyone can see that cryonics doesn't work yet." The real problem is that anyone familiar with existing equipment and procedures, related to hypothermic procedures, can see that it's unlikely to EVER work, given the amateur nature of the equipment and personnel. By comparison, "suspending" someone for a period of an hour, should be relatively simple, shouldn't it? By that, I mean a company trying to suspend people for decades, or centuries, should certainly be capable of performing hypothermic procedures, which were perfected decades ago, should they not? Yet, what would happen, if we were to substitute Alcor and/or SA staff members and equipment for what would normally be found in open-heart pr
 ocedures? Would approximately 96% of their patients survive, as in conventional medicine? Given what I've seen, my bet would be 100% would die. It's absurd to think people who can't even begin to match given technology, which has existed for decades, can surpass it.

In regard to Mr. Platt's remarks on Mr. Ettinger "(being) said to have wasted $25,000 on Olga Visser, the lady who
claimed to be able to revive a frozen rat heart," I can honestly say I have never seen anyone waste more money on foolishness, than Mr. Platt, himself. The projects he was leading, at SA, (vehicle ramps, perfusion level detectors, Autopulse modification, cooldown box, etc.), combined, certainly ran into seven figures over the years, (mostly man-hours), and were all ridiculous, in my opinion, as a medical professional very familiar with hypothermic procedures. $25K is but a drop in the bucket, compared to the millions that have been spent at CCR, Alcor and SA, on some very questionable, and often fruitless, projects.

As Mr. Stodolsky writes, "Without integrity, there is no trust and confidence. Expecting people to hand over a large sum of cash for many tens of years of suspension will be impeded by any lack of this type." There is never going to be progress, in the technology, or the marketing, of cryonics, for so long as the key players remain the same.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32620

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32621
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:51:34 EDT
Subject: Quick fixes etc

Not that it's important, but it's a minor irritant, so I'll say  a bit  
about Platt's assertion that I believed for many years in a quick fix.
 
In one sense at one time--in the beginning--I believed that my first book  
would work magic, but we all learned better. In the Visser case, we took  
precautions and there was support at Alcor as well as CI, but it was still a  
blunder. Mainly, however, for many years I have tried to influence people 
not  to  look for magic mass marketing solutions, but to  keep on doing  what 
we know works somewhat, namely, working patiently and lovingly with your  
own relatives and friends. 
 
There are still lots of unknowns, and it remains possible for new blood or  
new ideas to make a difference, or for some celebrity conversion to 
resonate. 
 
Platt had his own share of quick fix ideas, including the Omni contest,  
which was a worthy effort even though a failure. He has also caught a lot of  
heat for his reported failures and wrong-headedness at SA. I could cite lots 
of  complaints about him, but what's the point? He apparently has the ear 
and  confidence of Kent and Faloon, with plenty of funding, so if he ever  
finds a better approach presumably we'll know about it.
 
As I have said repeatedly in recent years, progress is slow but membership  
and patient numbers have been accelerating, albeit off a very small base. 
In  any  case, it's the only game in town for those who reject delusion.
 
Robert Ettinger
 
 
In a message dated 6/13/2010 5:00:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

CryoNet  - Sun 13 Jun 2010

#32613: Re: Silver Platters Ignored...  [robomoon]
#32614: Re: Silver Platters Ignored, in  Cryonics  [John de Rivaz]
#32615: Re: Silver Platters  Ignored, in Cryonics [David Stodolsky]
#32616: The Enduring  Myth of One Quick Promotional Fix [Charles Platt]
#32617: The  Enduring Myth of One Quick Promotional Fix [John de Rivaz]

Rate This  Digest:  
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32613%2D32617

Administrivia

To  subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
[email protected]
with the subject line (not message  _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject  line:
unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your  message to:
[email protected]
from the same address to  which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to  [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject  line.



Message  #32613
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: Silver Platters Ignored...

Regarding  progress: right, compared to something like electronics there 
was little  progress in cryonics over the last 40 years. And it would be no 
wonder if  there are no useful statistics available to check if the pace of 
technical  progress in comparison to it's financial progress has slowed down 
for more  than 50 Percent over the last 20 years. Yes, that's something those 
on the  payroll at some cryonics organizations can happily bear.

Regarding  economics and my personal payroll, it actually occurs to me that 
I belong to a  social class of the one Percent of citizens with the lowest 
financial income  in Germany. For more than ten years I have tried to earn 
more money so I could  afford to sign up for cryonics without being a burden 
to my family and their  own needs my income has to fulfill. But as I grew 
older, I even got more ill  than before, so after I lost my last job 
opportunities more and more, I got  retired anyways. No resources, not even  
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/tradecommunity could pull the nuggets  out of 
nowhere for me. 

The other way in economics I tried is to make  cryonics cheaper - see all 
the messages robomoon posted to CryoNet, Cold  Filter, ImmInst, and related 
forums. Of cause, there was success to get in  contact with Russian providers 
KrioRus and CryoFreedom, but the communications  with them are limited due 
to their small staffing. Despite or because of there  apparently low funding 
requirements they don't have much business sense to  work out an extra 
cheap contract arrangement with all the details required to  make payments easy 
and convenient.

Cryonics and payroll are close  together, despite of various individuals 
telling me how cheap it can be with  Life Insurance (as if everyone in the 
world can easily get a cheap one). Thank  you, Melody Maxim, very much for 
that! So we see it's the wrong time to tell  people like me I'm a deathist, 
let's talk payroll  instead!

///



-- 
WM 2010: Top News, Spielplane,  Public Viewing-Termine, E-Cards und alles, 
was der Fan sonst noch braucht,  gibt's im Sport-Channel auf  arcor.de.
http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.wm2010

Rate This Message:  http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32613


Message  #32614
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References:  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Silver  Platters Ignored, in Cryonics 
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:22:36  +0100

What really needs to be done if this is to be taken seriously is  to get a 
list of firms and qualified individuals willing to participate and a  
schedule of costs. Then compare this to the salaries that are being paid to  the 
people Melody considers unsuitable, and put this to the LEF, and see if  they 
would be interested in altering their grant structure.

I have a  horrible suspicion that firms and individuals willing to 
participate could not  be found, and/or that the figures would not add up, but I 
could be totally  wrong.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com  for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists,  Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz  genealogy,  Nomad .. 
and
more


 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32621

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32622
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:53:44 -0700
Subject: Technological inevitabilism
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

I've noticed from observing BP's problem that it sounds almost like
the reverse of cryonics' problem. Everyone starts out assuming that
someone will come up with a technological solution to the Deepwater
Horizon crisis in a timely fashion, even if nothing tried "yet" has
fully succeeded. In fact, they've gotten rather insistent that someone
does find and implement this solution immediately.

Despite the ongoing failures, we haven't reached the point of
dismissing these efforts as "false hope," "denial" or "techno-utopian
speculation," terms I've heard applied to cryonics.

In other words, when a sufficiently dire emergency back us to the
wall, people discover they believe in the inevitability of a
technology way to protect them even if recent evidence doesn't support
such a belief. Who therefore has the defective outlook on
technological progress, cryonicists, or believers in the Deepwater
Horizon Solution?

-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32622

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32623
From: "Eisab" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Study Reveals How Suspended Animation 
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:15:49 -0400

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610171714.htm

Freezing 'to Death' and Living to Tell About It: Study Reveals How Suspended 
Animation Protects Against Lethal Hypothermia

ScienceDaily (June 11, 2010) - How is it that some people who apparently 
freeze to death, with no heart rate or respiration for extended periods, can 
be brought back to life with no long-term negative health consequences? New 
findings from the laboratory of cell biologist Mark B. Roth, Ph.D., of Fred 
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, may help explain the mechanics behind 
this widely documented phenomenon. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32623

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32624
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:12:19 -0700
Subject: David and John
From: Charles Platt <[email protected]>

Thanks to David for his thorough exposition of a game plan. Perhaps he
posted this in the past, and I missed it, in which case, I apologize.
I still have doubts that it would work, but the discussion would
require a level of detail and more time than I have available. I am
certainly more willing now to imagine that it _might_ have some
results.

John's points are well taken. Where I differ is that I don't believe
the word "yet" (as in "cryonics doesn't work yet") is relevant in the
minds of most potential consumers. If it doesn't work yet, it doesn't
work, so far as most people are concerned. You can set out the case
for molecular nanotechnology in relentless detail, and I don't think
it makes any difference.

Recently I went out and met various people involved in privately
funded space ventures. One venture, Rocketplane
(http://www.rocketplane.com), is trying to sell reservations for
future suborbital flights. Their web site shows various 3D renderings,
but they do not have an operational vehicle yet. They don't say how
many reservations they have sold, but so far as I can tell, the number
is minuscule. It may even be zero. Meanwhile of course Virgin Galactic
has accepted more than 300 deposits for their $200,000 flights,
because in their case, preliminary hardware has been successfully
demonstrated.

We are dealing here with very familiar concepts: Winged vehicles that
fly. No stretch of the imagination is needed. We certainly don't have
to wait for the Singularity. Yet still people are reluctant to make a
commitment until they see something that works. Why should cryonics be
any different?

This point has been argued endlessly. There are those, such as myself,
who feel that a revived cryopreserved mammal is the first essential
step. There are others who feel that since cryonics makes sense for
them, it must make sense for other people, too. Alas this ignores the
fact (very obvious if one attends any meeting of cryonicists) that
almost all people who sign up for cryonics are far from the center of
most bell curves. Their outlook is not in any way typical. Of course I
include myself among them. You simply cannot generalize from this
specific.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32624

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32625
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: [email protected]
Subject: toxicologists and organic solvent toxicity

[Has any attempt been made to either hire or otherwise query professional toxicologists with regard to cryoprotectant toxicity? After all, it is toxicologists who are the true professionals in this field, where even the most informed cryobiologists can be nothing more than talented amateurs. For example, a combination search on Pubmed for (fomepizole cryopreservation) yielded only a single unhelpful citation. By comparison, a combination search for (fomepizole ethylene glycol) yielded 122 hits. As far as I am aware, pretreatment with fomepizole in terminal patients interested in cryonics has never been attempted. Why is this? Is somebody saying fomepizole is not needed? Only toxicologists can make such that judgement.]

Toxicol Sci. 2010 Jun 7. [Epub ahead of print]
Inhibition of metabolism of diethylene glycol prevents target organ toxicity in rats.
Besenhofer LM, Adegboyega PA, Bartels M, Filary MJ, Perala AW, McLaren MC, McMartin KE. Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience.
Abstract
    Diethylene glycol (DEG) is an industrial chemical, the misuse of which has led to numerous epidemic poisonings worldwide. The mechanism of its toxicity has not been defined as to the precise relationship between the metabolism of DEG and target organ toxicity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanism for the acute toxicity of DEG, and the effect of the alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor 4-methylpyrazole (fomepizole), by determining the relationship between accumulation of DEG or its metabolites and the resulting kidney and liver toxicity. Rats were treated by oral gavage with water, 2 g/kg DEG (low dose), 10 g/kg DEG (high dose), or 10 g/kg DEG + fomepizole and blood and urine were collected over 48 h. Rats treated with high dose DEG had metabolic acidosis, increased BUN
  and creatinine, and marked kidney necrosis, noted by histopathology. A minor degree of liver damage was noted at the high dose. After low and high doses of DEG, 2-hydroxyethoxyacetic acid (HEAA) was the primary metabolite in the urine, with only minor amounts of urinary diglycolic acid (DGA). Small amounts of ethylene glycol (EG), but not oxalate or glycolate, were observed in the urine. Treatment with fomepizole blocked formation of HEAA and DGA, and development of metabolic acidosis and the kidney and liver toxicity. These results indicate that the mechanism for the target organ toxicity results from metabolites of DEG, and not DEG itself nor formation of EG from DEG, and that fomepizole may be a useful antidote for treating DEG poisoning.
PMID: 20530232

J Med Toxicol. 2010 Apr 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Massive Ethylene Glycol Ingestion Treated with Fomepizole Alone-A Viable Therapeutic Option.
Buchanan JA, Alhelail M, Cetaruk EW, Schaeffer TH, Palmer RB, Kulig K, Brent J. Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, 777 Bannock St. MC 0180, Denver, CO, 80204, USA
Abstract
    Fomepizole is used to treat and prevent toxicity from ethylene glycol poisoning. Treatment with fomepizole without hemodialysis in massive ethylene glycol ingestion has been rarely reported in the literature; however, published literature and practice guidelines recommend considering dialysis for ethylene glycol levels >50 mg/dL. We report a case of massive ethylene glycol ingestion resulting in the highest serum ethylene glycol concentration in a patient without ethanol co-ingestion who was treated with fomepizole and was not hemodialyzed. A 48-year-old male presented to the emergency department after reportedly ingesting >1liter of antifreeze in an attempt at self-harm. He denied concomitant ethanol consumption. His initial presenting serum ethylene glycol level was 700 mg/dL, with n
 ormal renal function, and a metabolic acidosis with a high anion gap. One hour after presentation, he was started on intravenous fomepizole. Treatment with fomepizole continued until the patient's plasma ethylene glycol concentration was 16 mg/dL. His metabolic acidosis quickly resolved, he had no adverse reactions to the treatment, and his renal function remained normal. Ultimately, he was discharged to a psychiatric unit without sequelae. Published literature and practice guidelines suggests considering hemodialysis initiation in patients with an ethylene glycol level >50 mg/dL. This recommendation is anecdotally, rather than evidence, based. With the potential risks inherent in hemodialysis, our case provides evidence that treatment with fomepizole without hemodialysis appears to be a
  viable alternative option in patients with even extremely high plasma ethylene glycol concentrations as long as their renal function is intact.
PMID: 20422336

[Make a guess why DMSO keeps getting partnered with ethylene glycol in vitrification solutions.]

Science. 1968 Apr 19;160(825):317-9.
Dimethyl sulfoxide: an inhibitor of liver alcohol dehydrogenase.
Perlman RL, Wolff J.
Abstract
    Dimethyl sulfoxide inhibits horse liver alcohol dehydrogenase. In the direction of aldehyde reduction, this inhibition is competitive with aldehyde, with an inhibition constant of 5 x 10(-3)M. Dimethyl sulfoxide reacts with the binary complex consisting of enzyme and the reduced form of nicotinamide -adenine dinucleotide to form a highly fluorescent ternary complex, with a dissociation constant similar to the inhibition constant. The inhibition of aldehyde reduction can be interpreted as due to competition between aldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide for the carbonyl binding site of the above-mentioned binary complex.
PMID: 4295948

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32625

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************