14 replies to this topic

[squid]

From: http://www.cryonics.org/whatsnew.html

On February 10th, 2005 the Cryonics Institute vitrified the dog of one of its Members, Kevin Boyle. Perfusion was through the aorta, with clamping of the descending aorta. Thus, only the upper portion of the body was perfused with Dr. Pichugin's vitrification mixture. The Cryonics Institute is now prepared to apply a similar procedure to its human patients living in the United States (there are shipping problems associated with overseas Members).

There is also a full account of the cryopreservation, it's pretty moving and sad.

Best, Ben. Vitrification Protocol used on Dog.
http://www.cryonics....s/Dog_Thor.html

[caliban]

Whats sad is that now both providers are errecting a smokescreen of secrecy regarding substantial details of their procedure. This is entirely against the scientific ethos and and exposes cryonauts to the utter mercy to those "up there".
Asking a patient to sign up to a secret procedure is at least unethical. I suspect that in many cases it will also be bad for business.

With CI's former tradition of openess, I had hoped for better.

[bgwowk]

They did not vitrify a dog. They think they may have vitrified the brain of a dog.

With CI's former tradition of openess, I had hoped for better.

Openess???!!!!??? About what?

CI has to my knowledge NEVER published a cooling curve, perfusion pressure plot, or cryoprotectant ramp for a patient in its history. It for years said it used glycerol in a Ringers carrier solution, with no specification of introduction details. Later it eventually came out, unless I misunderstood, that the Ringers carrier consisted of merely diluting glycerol in Ringers, resulting in a hypotonic solution doomed to cause edema at the end of perfusion. That's an incorrect way to make a cryoprotectant solution, and experts would have pointed out the error years earlier if those details had been disclosed.

Alcor has in contrast published the details of its technology development in great detail going back to the 1980s and the formulation of the MHP2 carrier solution in dog recovery models.

http://www.alcor.org...researchreports

In constrast to CI's purely narrative case reports, Alcor has published dozens of detailed technical case reports

http://www.alcor.org...tml#casereports

Alcor's website outlines its procedures in much more detail than CI ever has

http://www.alcor.org/procedures.html

and even recently started publishing its procedure manuals

http://www.alcor.org....html#procedure

although the most recent ones have yet to go up. Only in 2001 did Alcor put its cryoprotectant solution under wraps, and I think you'll see that change later this year.

Ordinarily I try not get involved in cryonics partisan politics, but to lump Alcor and CI together as equivalently closed shops is just over the top. IMHO, Alcor's disclosures are two orders of magnitude beyond CI's. If the enormous work that went into the preparation and publication of all that documentation is neither noticed or acknowledged, then why should an organization even try?

---BrianW

[caliban]

but to lump Alcor and CI together as equivalently closed shops is just over the top.

The remark was not meant as a comparison.

If the enormous work that went into the preparation and publication of all that documentation is neither noticed or acknowledged, then why should an organization even try?

Why they should try is hopefully just a rethorical question. I'd like to say that I for one greatly appreciate any disclosure and the professional approach that ALCOR often takes.
To be honest, here in Europe ALCOR still has the reputation of being secretive to the point of obfuscation, but I might be wrong.

Only in 2001 did Alcor put its cryoprotectant solution under wraps, and I think you'll see that change later this year.

That would certainly be great! Will this include vitrification details? [sfty]


<hr>

To those who are new to the issue:
--> http://www.cryonics....ITRIFICAT-58610

In light of these comments
- Its interresting that CI heve adopted vitrification
- Its interresting that CI so far have not disclosed technical and experimental details

[bgwowk]

caliban wrote:

That (solution disclosure) would certainly be great! Will this include vitrification details?

I think the only detail missing is the solution composition.

I should mention that vitrification is going to be a real problem to implement in Europe by either organization because once perfused with vitrification solution, it's necessary to ship at temperatures below -110 degC or risk ice formation. This differs from old-style glycerol perfusions in which frozen patients could be conveniently shipped overseas on dry ice (-80 degC). The alternative is to blood-substitute with organ preservation solution and ship on water ice for vitrification in the U.S., which unfortunately entails a lot of cold ischemic time.

---BrianW

[caliban]

I think the only detail missing is the solution composition.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. How will that information from be different from 21st Med's webpage and your papers?


off topic:

I should mention that vitrification is going to be a real problem to implement in Europe

Hm? As it stands, shipping (that is, not by plane) does not appear to be a huge technical problem at all, not even for full body patients. Transport logistics still need to be resolved (what harbour is nearest to Scottsdale?) and the question if using a proper dewar to start with would be easier altogether.

[bgwowk]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. How will that information be different from 21st Med's webpage and your papers?

Maybe we have our wires crossed. If you are talking about the medical tissue banking experiments of 21CM (not cryonics!), then you'll find details of that work in 21CM's publications and website. If, however, you are talking about Alcor's cryonics procedures, you'll find details of those in Alcor's publications and website.

The most detailed information about Alcor procedures is in the case reports, which in at least some cases include cryoprotectant concentration, pressure, and temperature as a function of time during perfusion, and temperature vs. time during cryogenic cooling. That information, if coupled with solution composition, would constitute complete disclosure of the cryopreservation protocol, at least for science purposes.

---BrianW

[caliban]

Sorry if I was under a misaprehension.
Kindly help to untangle the wires please.

Statement 1:

Only in 2001 did Alcor put its cryoprotectant solution under wraps, and I think you'll see that change later this year.

Statement 2:

I think the only detail missing is the solution composition.

What exactly will we see "change later this year"?

also with regards to

If you are talking about the medical tissue banking experiments of 21CM (not cryonics!), then you'll find details of that work in 21CM's publications and website. If, however, you are talking about Alcor's cryonics procedures, you'll find details of those in Alcor's publications and website.

I was under the impression that Alcor was using a combination of 21CM solutions (namely VEG, supercool and carrier solution) and was relying on research done within that remit with added data from fracturing recordings. Could you explain if this is correct, specifically:

- whether ALCOR's solution differs from 21CM's ?
- whether ALCOR has done further independend research ?

Sorry if these are really basic question. Many thanks for helping out.

[bgwowk]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I see now that you were simply asking whether Alcor's solution composition could be determined from 21CM's publications, not whether Alcor's methods of using the solution have been published by 21CM.

The answer is "no", the composition of the "B2C" vitrification solution used by Alcor has not been published by 21CM or Alcor. Without going into details, I'll just say that I believe this situation is temporary. Except for this detail, everything else about Alcor's cryopreservation protocol seems to be open.

---BrianW

[caliban]

The confusion persists.

the composition of the "B2C" vitrification solution used by Alcor has not been published by 21CM or Alcor. Without going into details, I'll just say that I believe this situation is temporary.

To quote from our "sister" board CoV

Post by: jonano on 2004-09-11 11:25:10

We haven't published on B2C, although I can tell you the toxicity is quite high. We'll soon be switching Alcor to M22, which we have published on. It has a much lower toxicity, and lower viscosity so it can be perfused faster with less exposure time before vitrification.

Could you please comment?

[bgwowk]

There is no one at 21CM that goes by the name "jonano". I certainly did not post that message. Posts like that can result from unscrupulous individuals ("jonano") taking private correspondence and posting it publicly without permission or attribution.

If in fact Alcor does switch from B2C to M22 (a mainstream organ cryopreservation solution of published composition), that's something for Alcor to announce when they are ready. My original point was and remains that Alcor has been very open about all aspects of their procedures except solution composition.

---BrianW

[caliban]

Posts like that can result from unscrupulous individuals ("jonano") taking private correspondence and posting it publicly without permission or attribution.

I'm unsure what you deem unscrupulous about providing information. With respect it is exactly this kind of obfuscation that damages trust and the acurate perception of ALCORS good intentions.

Besides:

If in fact Alcor does switch from B2C to M22 (a mainstream organ cryopreservation solution of published composition), that's something for Alcor to announce when they are ready.

ALCOR seems to have announced that switch more or less openly in the February Newsbulletin 2005:

The system was also tested with the automated nitrogen cooling, which was designed to regulate the environmental temperature in the patient enclosure and the mechanical section. Temperatures were dropped to -43 degrees Celsius before the testing was stopped, and they system performed as expected. Minus 43 degrees is significantly lower than the -22 degrees that will be required for M22 perfusion, so we expect no problems when that protocol is eventually implemented. Because it took some time to initially cool the enclosures, future operating procedures must include a pre-cooling of the system prior to the introduction of a patient. (my emphasis)

Why then are you talking about B2C? Why even go there? Would you not agree that given what scant information there is about B2C, consumers would be well advised to insist that an established solution is used which has been peer reviewed and the (toxic) effects of which can (and should be) studied further?

My original point was and remains that Alcor has been very open about all aspects of their procedures except solution composition.

Kindly look at it from the perspective of someone who is not privy to internal information. Vitrification has been talked about for a very long time. Now the providers are telling us they has cracked it but that they cannot disclose any details. Allegedly that was because of 21's trade secrets, but ... thats what patents are for. And behold: 21's CM are much more open about their solution than the providers themselves are.

Here in Europe, this will also involve a discussion whether we are able to train a team to administer perfusion in exactly the way that vitrification protocols require, and if not what the best alternative would be. Is a bad vitrification better than a good "glyceration"? Solution composition - and associated toxicity- would seem to be the key to that evaluation.

Consider the parallel:

[CI] for years said it used glycerol in a Ringers carrier solution, with no specification of introduction details. Later it eventually came out, unless I misunderstood, that the Ringers carrier consisted of merely diluting glycerol in Ringers, resulting in a hypotonic solution doomed to cause edema at the end of perfusion. That's an incorrect way to make a cryoprotectant solution, and experts would have pointed out the error years earlier if those details had been disclosed.

Disclosure seems to be the key. In a business such as this, you owe that much to a customer, and not only to those who have the interest and scientific capacity to evaluate information but to all those who will benefit from the discussion that disclosure initiates.
That was my original point and frankly, in light of your last reply, I too have to stand by it.

[bgwowk]

I'm unsure what you deem unscrupulous about providing information.

I take it back, and apologize to the individual concerned. I searched my email archives and discovered that I did give him permission to publicly post parts of my email. So, see, I was being open afterall.

 
With respect it is exactly this kind of obfuscation that damages trust and the acurate perception of ALCORS good intentions.

What are the "obfuscations" to which you refer? My disclosure that M22 might be superior to B2C, and that therefore a switch might be appropriate pending further confirmation? That is not an obfuscation, that is me sharing preliminary research. I guess I just learned the hard way why scientists aren't supposed to do that!

Why then are you talking about B2C? Why even go there?

Because that is the only vitrification solution that Alcor has ever used and is still using. More the point, I brought up B2C because the only thing that Alcor has ever hid about their cryopreservation protocol is the composition of B2C. Since that doesn't seem to be getting through, let me repeat that once again: THE ONLY THING THAT ALCOR HAS EVER HID IN THEIR CRYOPRESERVATION PROTOCOL IS THE COMPOSITION OF B2C! Furthermore, that was not even Alcor's choice. They were bound by a license agreement not to disclose it.

Would you not agree that given what scant information there is about B2C, consumers would be well advised to insist that an established solution is used which has been peer reviewed and the (toxic) effects of which can (and should be) studied further?

Of course it's better to use a solution with published composition. But you must realize that no such solution was known to exist until just a couple of months ago when the suitability of M22 for morphological vitrification of large organs at very slow cooling rates was finally verified. Alcor began to use B2C in 2001 because it was the least toxic solution the world believed able to do the job, and no better alternative (published or otherwise) was known to exist until very recently.

Disclosure seems to be the key. In a business such as this, you owe that much to a customer, and not only to those who have the interest and scientific capacity to evaluate information but to all those who will benefit from the discussion that disclosure initiates.
That was my original point and frankly, in light of your last reply, I too have to stand by it.

You are preaching to the choir, but why? Alcor has done nothing but provide every bit of information it legally could about its cryopreservation protocol. I've always been committed to openness. I push for openness in my company and I support openness at Alcor. I'm very enthusiastic about Alcor switching to a solution with a published composition, and thanks for the reminder that they have indeed announced that the switch is hapenning (but not yet finished). If there is anything other than solution composition behind your concerns, you should state it to give Alcor an opportunity to rectify it if possible. It's rather perverse that Alcor has developed a reputation for secrecy when it can't hold a candle to CI in that department.

---BrianW

[caliban]

Alcor began to use B2C in 2001 because it was the least toxic solution the world believed able to do the job, and no better alternative (published or otherwise) was known to exist until very recently.

I really apologise if I came across as accusatory in this regard. I have no doubt, whatsoever that ALCOR made the decision to adopt "B2C" in good faith and that it will always be eager to switch if a better solution becomes available. The recent disquiet arose from three factors:
1) The impression that ALCOR might have been sold "B2C" vitrification on what to some have suspected to be insufficient evidence.
2) The inability to independently verify the sagacity of that move.
3) Concerns that a switch to a preferable solution was not happening fast enough.

I think we have established in the course of this discussion that all these concerns are moot because ALCOR is currently switching over to M22.

You are preaching to the choir, but why? Alcor has done nothing but provide every bit of information it legally could about its cryopreservation protocol. I've always been committed to openness. I push for openness in my company and I support openness at Alcor.

If you are part of the choir, I warmly welcome you as a fellow (and much more influential) singer. Let us sing often and loud enough that the message of the hym is not forgotten: Cryonics needs the utmost possible transparency.


At this point, harking back to the beginning of the topic I would agree with you that the ball is with CI and Pichugin to ensure that this tenet is upheld by them as well.

Quoting from their Newsletter:

We expect to be using the new vitrification protocol for our human patients in the United States. The protocol involves perfusing only the upper body (above a line between the arm-pits) with vitrification mixture and cryopreserving the whole body without perfusing the lower body.

[caliban]

From a recent cryonet post one concludes that Mr. Ettinger himself has only just become aware of the facts vis a vis M22.

How many cryonicist don't actually follow the science?