CryoNet #33171 - #33177

CryoNet - Sun 2 Jan 2011

    #33171: Ray Kurzweil's water woo [MARK PLUS]
    #33172: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990 [Brian Wowk]
    #33173: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990 [David Stodolsky]
    #33174: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990 [Luke Parrish]
    #33175: Stephen Girard's trust still exists. [MARK PLUS]
    #33176: Cryopreservations since 1990 [M2darwin]
    #33177: Funeral directors and stabilizations [Brian Wowk]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33171%2D33177

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 #33171
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 07:26:24 -0700
Subject: Ray Kurzweil's water woo
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

Is Ray Kurzweil Into Homeopathy?
By Jonathan Parkinson

http://www.science20.com/predatory_gastropod/ray_kurzweil_homeopathy

-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33171

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

Message #33172
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:55:10 -0800
Subject: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990
From: Brian Wowk <[email protected]>

     Mike expressed the opinion that the quality of cryopreservations
have gone down since 1990 despite the use of better cryoprotectant
solutions because a lower percentage of people are being perfused with
the solutions.  Alcor did 10 cases in 2010.  One was a post-mortem
signup, one had cryopreservation blocked by relatives, and one was a
middle aged man who suffered sudden cardiac death.  The last two cases
required court action to gain access to remains.  The remaining seven,
Alcor's last seven cases, all received cryoprotective perfusion.  Six
of those received standbys.  That is as good as the Darwin/Leaf record
of 1980s, and at a much higher case density.  Three of these seven
cases occurred within a one month period.

     Mike expressed concern that ice blockers in modern vitrification
solution could worsen freezing injury in poorly-perfused areas by
delaying ice nulceation to very low temperatures where water would be
less mobile, and membranes less permeable to water.  However the high
molarity glycerol solutions used in cryonics in the 1990s were already
doing this.  The 7.4 molar glycerol solution in Mike's 1995 canine
study that showed excellent preservation would have had a melting
point near -50 degC, and would have likely supercooled tens of degrees
below that before starting to freeze as highly concentrated
cryoprotectant solutions tend to do.  An attempt was made at 21CM to
study what would happen to a brain cryopreserved and rewarmed after
perfusion with only 80% normal concentration of M22.  The experiment
failed to elucidate what happens to tissue that freezes due to
perfusion with sub-vitrifiable concentrations of M22 because even at
only 80% normal concentration, no freezing injury was observed.  It
may be that the concentration regime in which freezing differences
with and without ice blockers become most apparent is at dilute
concentrations, well below full concentration; concentrations at which
ice nulceation would normally occur near 0 degC, but becomes delayed
to low sub-zero temperatures by ice blockers.  The concern is valid in
theory, but there is no data, and as far as the brain is concerned it
would seem to only apply to a minority of patients when perfusion goes
poorly.  I remember speculating years ago that if a perfusion were
going poorly it might be theoretically beneficial to add ice
nucleators to the perfusion solution.  However it would be a difficult
call to make, and there is no data to support to it.

---BW

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33172

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

Message #33173
Subject: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 20:54:11 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 1 Jan 2011, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Four of the six patients that CI received in
> 2010 were post-mortem sign-ups, CI policy for post-mortem
> sign-ups has been that they must be on dry ice for two
> weeks while CI ensures that the funding and contracts
> will be received in order, that the next-of-kin arranging
> for the procedure has full legal authority, and that
> there are not going to be other devastating problems.
> CI is not encouraging post-mortem sign-ups, we advise
> and advise and advise people to make arrangements
> in advance, but too many people still only think about
> cryonics post-mortem.


Regardless of the cause, this still means that current social arrangements are responsible for poor suspensions. Repeatedly advising people to do the 'right thing' is known as 'jaw boning' in the management literature. It is a sign that proper incentives are lacking. 

These figures, and probably those covering all recent suspensions, show that social limitations, and not any technical/medical limitations, are responsible for a majority of poor suspensions. The one sided support for technical research and the total ignoring of social research is no doubt contributory to this state of affairs. 

I have argued elsewhere that suspension organizations are structurally unable to promote the social/political changes necessary to rectify this situation. An industry association could be a solution to this chronic problem.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33173

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

Message #33174
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 12:38:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cryopreservation since 1990

Ben Best wrote:
>
> Actually, Luke, the typical signed-up Cryonics
> Institute (CI) patient is simply packed in ice by
> a funeral director and shipped to Michigan for
> cryoprotectant perfusion and controlled cool-down
> in a computer-controlled cooling box. No extra
> initiative is required for CI Members with pre-mortem
> funding and contracts in place to be perfused with
> CI's vitrification solution.
> 
> Some CI Members arrange for a funeral director
> or friends to do standy. Jack Zinn, CI's 91st
> patient, received standby from a team of volunteers:
> 
> http://www.cryonics.org/reports/CI91.html
> 
> Standby/Stabilization services for CI Members
> is an optional extra which some CI Members arrange
> on their own. Some CI Members in the United
> States arrange by contract with Suspended Animation, Inc.
> at an additional cost of about $60,000 on top
> of CI's usual fees. As of the end of December, 2010
> there are 94 CI Members (including myself) who
> have arranged for Standby/Stabilization/Transport
> from Suspended Animation, Inc. in addition to
> the usual contracts with CI.
> 
>   -- Ben Best, President, Cryonics Institute

Interesting. I guess I was mentally failing to distinguish
stabilization from cryoprotectant perfusion, because
stabilization involves perfusion (with a washout solution)
and helps prevent perfusion impairment later (by removing
the blood and ensuring more rapid cooling).

What percentage are like Jack Zinn and arrange stabilization
services? If most patients are being shipped in ice by funeral
directors without washout, that might somewhat support Doug's
contention that CI is devolving into a cemetery.

Robert Ettinger has suggested hiring and training local
morticians as an alternative to the use of lay volunteers or
Suspended Animation. Given that morticians come with skills in
cannulating patients without a heartbeat, it seems the amount
of training needed for stabilization to go off without any 
surprises would be reduced. Further, there's the more subtle
issue that morticians have broad pre-existing societal
permission to operate on "dead" bodies and get paid for it.
Are there any particular disadvantages to this approach?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33174

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

Message #33175
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:53 -0700
Subject: Stephen Girard's trust still exists.
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

The people who view cryonics revival trusts as a money grabbing scam
might want to explain why the trust set up by early American financier
and freethinker Stephen Girard still exists after he died in 1831, and
still provides income for the college he established in his will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Girard

http://www.citytrusts.com/Financial%20Reports/Girard%202010%20FinanciaL%20Statements.pdf

-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33175

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

Message #33176
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:06:12 EST
Subject: Cryopreservations since 1990

Because of the limitations of the CryoNet format, it is not possible for me 
 to post my response to Brian Wowk here. Instead, I have done the next best 
 thing, which is to make it available in pdf format, which may be 
downloaded by  clicking on the following URL, or pasting it into your browser:
 
_https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1017065123/9487b67ba2c66455218599810f6c3ff3_ 
(https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1017065123/9487b67ba2c66455218599810f6c3ff3) 
 
Please note that this link has a limited life span.
 
Thanks,
Mike Darwin


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33176

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

Message #33177
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 23:58:36 -0800
Subject: Funeral directors and stabilizations
From: Brian Wowk <[email protected]>

Luke Parish wrote:

>Robert Ettinger has suggested hiring and training local
>morticians as an alternative to the use of lay volunteers or
>Suspended Animation. Given that morticians come with skills in
>cannulating patients without a heartbeat, it seems the amount
>of training needed for stabilization to go off without any
>surprises would be reduced. Further, there's the more subtle
>issue that morticians have broad pre-existing societal
>permission to operate on "dead" bodies and get paid for it.
>Are there any particular disadvantages to this approach?

       There are several incorrect premises in this question.  First,
Cryonics Institute does not do field blood washout, so cannulation
skills of morticians are academic visa vi their utility for
stabilization of CI patients.

http://www.cryonics.org/washout_directions.html

Second, field blood washout is not the main purpose or biological
advantage of stabilization.  The main purpose of stabilization is
rapid cooling, I.V. administration of blood clotting inhibitors, and
I.V. administration of other protective medications.  Doing this
optimally requires a true standby (bedside vigil until legal death
occurs), which morticians are rarely able to do, sustained CPR for two
or more hours in an ice bath (which morticians don't have the
equipment to do), and administration of more medications than just
heparin.  Third, when field blood washout is done by Alcor or SA,
there seems to be a perception that cryonics stabilization teams are
displacing morticians who could do cannulations.  In fact, most
cryonics field blood washouts are done under the auspices and in the
premises of morticians.  In a mortuary, and sometimes even in cryonics
transport vehicles, morticians are available to help with cannulations
when doing so is advantageous.  As a practical matter, morticians lack
experience working in blood filled surgical fields compared to
personnel specifically trained to cannulate vessels under such
conditions.

---BW

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33177

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

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