From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med
Subject: Re: digitalised self
Date: 27 Nov 1998 23:09:06 GMT

Somebody wrote:

>>Water expands when frozen, and will destroy your cells from the
>>inside,....


   NO!  This counts as one of the great scientific myths.  Cells are
distensible, and 10% increase in volume doesn't harm them at all.  If
you can get cells in thin layers, you can actually flash freeze them
(both inside and in the interstitial volume outside) without "killing"
them (ie, they can be revived).

   Freezing large hunks of tissue damages cells in several ways.  One
is ice crystals forming between cells (where they form first when
cooling is slow, due to proteins that act as ice inhibitors inside
cells).  These crystals, because they are pure H2O, osmotically
concentrate the remaining liquid and cause cell dehydration by osmosis,
and possibly direct damage from very high local ion concentrations.
They also do mechanical damage, when large.  The high concentration of
salts inside cells from this osmotic process allows vitrification of
cell interiors, which is good.  Intracellular freezing when it is slow,
is harmful for reasons pooorly understood.  And if all this is not
enough, low temperatures cause cell membranes to undergo a transition
to a different lipid configuration called "hexagonal phase", which is
completely open, and not the nice lamellar barrier that normal cells
have.  This is not good.  Finally, in large pieces of tissue (organs)
differing parts of tissue have different thermal expansion
characteristics, which on solidification leaves no room for relief of
the stress due to the differential expansion (a little like in plate
tectonics).  The result is large scale cracking, which again is very
bad for tissues, as it shears capillaries and blood supply.


>More importantly, water freezes when frozen. The crystal is pure water
>so all the other stuff (mostly NaCl) is concentrated in the unfrozen
>channels. The expansion has little to no effect on your *cells*
>although it may be important in the destruction of larger structures.

   Yep.


>
>>Perhaps a sort of a anti-freeze virus could be created,..
>>(a mix of the gene witch allows sertain frogs to survive freezing, and a
>>non harmfull virus,...)
>
>Those frogs only survive freezing if the temperature stays above
>~-6'C. Short term storage only. In Rana Sylvatica, the enzyme just
>turns glycogen into glucose when ice starts growing inside the body.
>All other amphibian and reptillian systems are similar. The solute
>(glucose in this case) simply acts colligatively to reduce the salt
>concentration during freezing.
>
>If you want to see the future, it may be easier to build a very fast
>spaceship than to cryopreserve a human. At present, the technical
>problems associated with both approaches are significant.
>
>
>Ken Muldrew
>kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca


    Not as significant as you'd think.  One branch of my company (21st
Century Medicine) is well on the way to vitrification of organs
(vitrification = no freezing, no phase change, just stiffening up, like
glass solidification).  Applying this to whole animals is tough, but a
biomedical problem likely to be FAR more easy than building a starship,
or even a space station. The problem is that government funding for it
has been nil, and so has standard business investment.  Nobody is
really interested in suspended animation for humans.  As for organs,
the advantages exist but are small, and the NIH hasn't been very
interested either.   The Red Cross recently shut down their solid organ
vitrification program, and that was the major one in the country.  The
Red Cross team has now gone to work for us, funded mainly by donations
from a couple of "ecentric" patrons, and the startup has eaten a lot of
research time.  And, of course, funding is still bad.  Investors want
to see a business plan for suspended animation of people.  ROFL.  As
well have the Wright brothers write up one for flying machines (the
closest parallel I can think of right now or this kind of research).

                                           Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med
Subject: Re: digitalised self
Date: 2 Dec 1998 03:28:04 GMT

In <741r02$okm@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ken
Muldrew) writes:
>
>sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>
>>>If you want to see the future, it may be easier to build a very fast
>>>spaceship than to cryopreserve a human. At present, the technical
>>>problems associated with both approaches are significant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken Muldrew
>>>kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca
>
>
>>    Not as significant as you'd think.  One branch of my company (21st
>>Century Medicine) is well on the way to vitrification of organs
>>(vitrification = no freezing, no phase change, just stiffening up, like
>>glass solidification).  Applying this to whole animals is tough, but a
>>biomedical problem likely to be FAR more easy than building a starship,
>
>Maybe yes maybe no. Since we still don't have a good understanding of
>how cells in suspension are killed during freezing and thawing (my
>claim) then I'd argue that there is some basic science that will have
>to be done (as opposed to engineering). Even with lots of money it's
>hard to predict how easy this is going to be (I *hope* it turns out to
>be a lot easier than building starships).
>
>I'll wait until I see functioning organs that have been vitrified and
>thawed before getting overly excited about the possibility.
>
>Ken Muldrew
>kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca
>


   Rat intestine has already been successfully vitrified in liquid
nitrogen and re-implanted, to function normally.  This is possible
because of surface-area and structure in the intestine which make very
fast cooling possible, with low thermal stress.  It's enough to
demonstrate the principle.

   Now-- for your equivalent in the case of the starship?

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Closet Cryonicists Re: Is Cryonics Safe???
Date: 13 Oct 2005 16:33:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1129246386.464767.222450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:
> Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period.

COMMENT:

A cryonicist who also regularly publishes articles on cryobiology in
the journal Cryobiology. No "period" is warrented. Look up cryobiology
if you need a definition. Take a look at the Cryobiology journal site
if you want to see how it is regarded by those in the field. (Hint--
it's THE journal).

In fact (this may frost you), Dr. Wowk and I have published 2 joint
papers in that journal.

Wowk, B., Darwin, M., Harris, S.B., Russell, S.R., and Rasch, C.M.
Effects of Solute Methoxylation on Glass Forming Ability and Stability
of Vitrification Solutions, Cryobiology 39: 215-227, 1999.

Wowk, B., Leitl, E., Rasch, C.M., Mesbah-Karimi, N., Harris, S.B., and
Fahy, G.M. Vitrification enhancement by synthetic ice blocking agents.
Cryobiology 40: 228-236, 2000.

FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they
were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge
source of private resource money. When THAT didn't materialize, they
spent the next 30 years in a witchhunt. Eventually that has died down,
and cryonics (in the eyes of cryobiologists) has passed from dangerous
cult to (presently) a pleasantly jokable alternative philosophical
view. Not least because of the work of a few leading cryobiologists
(no, I'm not one-- I just help out now and then) who also happen to be
cryonicists. In any case, think of Scientology in Hollywood and you
have somewhat the idea. Or homosexuality in Hollywood, about the time
of Rock Hudson's announcement of his illness.

But stay tuned. If "openly cryonicist" cryobiologists manage to
cryopreseserve the first major organ for transplant (a major goal and
Holy Grail in cryobiology for years), the relevant social model will be
more like Judaicism in Hollywood.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Is Cryonics Safe???
Date: 14 Oct 2005 12:49:02 -0700
Message-ID: <1129319342.210601.189600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:

> If we're looking at cryonics as a way to dispose of remains; someone is
> still paying way more than any comparable way done today in North
> America.


Not really true. You can be burried in a Cadillac in North America, if
you like. You can have your own mausoleum on an island like the
Princess of Wales, if you want to pay for it. So?


>And if it's insurance you don't really, you a LIBERTARIAN,
> think that's fair do you? All those other people paying for your whims?


COMMENT:

You get the insurance you pay for. This is no skin off the nose of
anybody else who is insurred. You have a poor understanding of both
insurance and libertarians (who have no problem with insurance, so long
as it's honest, nor parimutual betting or gambling, with the same
caveat).  The house always takes its cut. So long as everybody's clear
about what that cut is, nobody cares who bets on what.


> I've always regarded life insurance as a despicable scam.


Your problem. Most people disagree with you.


> But if I
> *had* any, I think I'd want it to go to my beneficiary, wouldn't I?


I don't know. If you think it's despicable scam, I don't know that
you'd even be considering the issue. But perhaps it's sort of like me
disagreeing with homicide, whilst still contemplating the people I'd
like to throttle.

Frustration

If I had a shiny gun,
I could have a world of fun
Speeding bullets through the brains
Of the folk who give me pains;

Or had I some poison gas,
I could make the moments pass
Bumping off a number of
People whom I do not love.

But I have no lethal weapon-
Thus does Fate our pleasure step on!
So they still are quick and well
Who should be, by rights, in hell.

-- Dorothy Parker


> Which brings up something else. A majority of people will not have more
> than a modest life insurance or bond, or some such, and would want
> their beneficiary to have that.

They can always buy more, which is what's recommended. As noted, the
cost is less than smoking habit, if you think about it while still
healthy.

> So this method of taking care of one's
> remains is pretty much limited to a well-heeled segment of the
> population.


By no means.



> > Whether you can get cryonics "after the fact" (ie, after you're
> > clinically dead) depends on how long your relatives drag your heels
>
> <<LOL>>  did you mean this?????


COMMENT:
Typo, but I let it stand.



> > So do up your living will. Which is essentially what Williams did. But
> > be aware that you can't please everyone in such things, so you've got
> > to please yourself.
>
> I have been told physicians have a right to override. Now I don't know
> if that's my province, Canada....?


COMMENT:

I don't know, either. But not in the U.S.


> I don't know all particulars in the William's case, I don't think. But
> yes I agree with ANYONE having a right to do as they choose. {I always
> have. It's just that I've never heard it called Libertarian. To me, it
> was always called "Who the hell do you think you are?"}

COMMENT:
That's the basic Libertarian thought. And the answer in Canada is "Why,
we're the government, and we're here to help!"  But all countries have
problems. I told you about the Chinese scientist here who'd lived and
worked in Communist China, then Belgium, then Canada, then California.
He said Belgium was the most socialist, followed by Canada, then China,
then the US. But even so, I have to explain to my own Chinese chemist
why the Land of the Free has such a heavy-handed institution as the
FDA. He's aghast.

When somebody makes the pill you'd like to take illegal or controlled
(except for antibiotics, which will polute the environment), the proper
response is "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Why don't you try repeating it 10 times? Be good for you.


> > > But lit's not just another way to dispose of your body when you die.
> >
> >
> > Actually, that's exactly what it is. So is donating yourself to a
> > medical school.
>
> vida supra


Vide is the spelling, I keep telling you. And again, vide supra
yourself.


SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Is Cryonics Safe???
Date: 14 Oct 2005 20:34:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1129347285.305618.322740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> Certainly the buyers are the suckers to end all suckers. Rather than
> checking out on schedule and being recycled, they are choosing to have a
> truly tiny chance of an extended life at some probably far future date. I
> can imagine being "awakened" in 2090 in a government lab and discovering
> that I am a brain in a jar with scientists running pain experiments. My kids
> and grandkids are all dead and gone.


COMMENT:

The usual fears. Nobody you know will be there. Your mileau is gone.
They'll be running pain-tolerance experiments on your naked brain.

Did you ever stop to think that if society gets to the point that
nobody cares about running those types of experiments, that humanity
won't survive the weapons we're developing, anyway?  If you wake up at
all, it will be in a place where people have learned a few things about
empathy.

On the other hand, tonight you could stroke out and wake up in an ICU
"locked-in" to your own body, fully conscious but unable to move a
muscle, including blink.  And if you hurt, or get cramps, tough. Cause
there's no way to tell anybody about it.

Might as well shoot yourself, now. It's safer.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Closet Cryonicists Re: Is Cryonics Safe???
Date: 14 Oct 2005 12:09:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1129316946.018104.325700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
> > fresh~horses wrote:
> > > Like I said; Wowk is a cryonicist. Period.
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > A cryonicist who also regularly publishes articles on cryobiology in
> > the journal Cryobiology. No "period" is warrented. Look up cryobiology
> > if you need a definition. Take a look at the Cryobiology journal site
> > if you want to see how it is regarded by those in the field. (Hint--
> > it's THE journal).
>
> And he's employed by whom, where, to do what?


COMMENT:
Since he's a friend and I'm not about to go looking on the net to see
what's public and what isn't, I'll be glad to let you do that task.


> > In fact (this may frost you), Dr. Wowk and I have published 2 joint
> > papers in that journal.
>
> I know. ; )
>
> And you're not a cryobiologist either.

COMMENT:

So? You can find many an article in Lancet or The New England Journal
of Medicine in which one of the authors is not a medical doctor. But
generally at least one author is. In this case, the cryobiologists
include Wowk.

> Yes yes yes. And he's good Ukrainian boy from the north end of Wpg. but
> now lives and works in the demimonde.

COMMENT:

Yesssssssss! The twilit world of crepuscular creatures with vespersian
diversions!

When I said that that a lot of smart people come out of Canada, and the
smarter they are, the faster they come out, Wowk was one of the people
I had in mind.


> > FYI, when cryobiologists first heard about cryonics in the 1960's, they
> > were intrigued. Not least because they thought it might be a huge
> > source of private resource money. When THAT didn't materialize, they
> > spent the next 30 years in a witchhunt. Eventually that has died down,
> > and cryonics (in the eyes of cryobiologists) has passed from dangerous
> > cult to (presently) a pleasantly jokable alternative philosophical
> > view.
>
>
> Hoo Haw! You haven't been reading what I've been readin'!


COMMENT:
Perhaps not. But who says what you're reading is correct? My take on
the general subject, having met many an insider in both cryonics and
cryobiology, and knowing far more the history than you ever will, is
the correct one. Yes, a few bigotted cryobiologists remain. One
Canadian one who works on frozen beetles comes to mind. But
narrowmindedness knows no borders.

You can choose to believe me or not.

SBH