<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:18pt"><div><span>Rafal: I would imagine that direct brain preservation for cryonics would<br>start out similar to a whole body case except that after the initial<br>cooldown, washout and stabilization the surgeon would open the skull,<br>and remove the brain to directly cannulate the internal carotids for<br>vitrification perfusion. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>David: If we could remove the brain within a few minutes of legal death and then work on it under ice water that would probably be the faster way to cool it down.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Rafal: Perhaps it would be possible to inject the<br>cryoprotectant into the ventricular system and the subarachnoid space<br>which might reduce the likelihood of fracturing during cooling. The<br>skull
would be then replaced and the scalp would be sown up, just as<br>it is done during normal autopsies. This approach would pose some<br>technical challenges but also offer more options. For example, since<br>the brain is just a fraction of the size of the head, the procedure<br>would reduce the long term cost of neuro suspension even further,<br>without greatly increasing the initial expense.<br></span><span></span></div><div><span>David: It would go even faster if we could cannulate the carotids while the patients was still <span id="misspell-7"><span>legally</span></span> alive and at the instant of legal death start the <span id="misspell-8">perfusion</span> and brain removal and into ice water all at the same time.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span> <var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span> </div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"> <div style="font-family: times
new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <div style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" class="hr" contentEditable="false" readonly="true"></div> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> david pizer <pizerdavid@yahoo.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Extropy Chat <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, May 28, 2012 6:50 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] May Cryonics issue<br> </font> </div> <br>
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM, david pizer <<a href="mailto:pizerdavid@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:pizerdavid@yahoo.com">pizerdavid@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> public relations. The non-cryonics public, (and some of the cryonics<br>> community too), hates neuro. The fact that Alcor does neuros is sometimes<br>> the single factor why government officials give us a hard time. I was there<br>> 11 years and I saw that with my own eyes. This very factor of such<br>> negative public relations is the main reason why CI will not do neuros.<br><br>### This is a very interesting and valuable insight. As an extremely<br>rational, or rationalistic person I have difficulty following the<br>thinking of regular people on such issues. It doesn't help that I<br>worked in an anatomy lab, and any residual squeamishness I had<br>disappeared there among fumes of formaldehyde. But, normal people are<br>the
greatest potential market for cryonics services, so it is crucial<br>to understand their feelings and respond accordingly.<br><br>The question is, how can we quantify the possible losses that the<br>Alcor community incurs as a result of using neuro suspensions. Is it a<br>major impact, enough to discourage us from this procedure, even though<br>it is technically superior? Or is it more of a side issue?<br><br>You may also note that what Ralph elaborated on in his article, was<br>the question of how much should be the contributions of neuro and<br>whole body patients to the PCT - and this specifically excludes legal<br>and public relations expenses. The PCT covers (according to what Ralph<br>wrote) only the direct spending on keeping patients frozen, such as<br>building rent, cost of dewar manufacture, liquid nitrogen and<br>supervision - and this cost is in fact 10 times higher for whole body<br>patients. Is it worth to increase the long term cost of
suspension by<br>10 times only to avoid causing "disgust" in some people? I would find<br>it hard to believe, in the absence of some hard data. If it were the<br>major issue separating successful cryonics companies from failures,<br>then the CI and ACS would have to be already vastly ahead of Alcor,<br>since they presumably do not come up against this emotional reaction.<br><br>This said, I agree that direct brain preservation, or the option of<br>preservation of the whole body and brain *separately*, could be<br>potentially interesting. There are many people donating brains to<br>research (perhaps in part because it does not cost them anything), and<br>if separate brain preservation could make cryonics more palatable to<br>potential customers, it is at least worth spending some effort on<br>marketing research to quantify the possibilities.<br><br>I would imagine that direct brain preservation for cryonics would<br>start out similar to a whole body case
except that after the initial<br>cooldown, washout and stabilization the surgeon would open the skull,<br>and remove the brain to directly cannulate the internal carotids for<br>vitrification perfusion. While this would potentially expose the brain<br>to some mechanical stresses, it might also help achieve cryogenic<br>temperatures faster. Perhaps it would be possible to inject the<br>cryoprotectant into the ventricular system and the subarachnoid space<br>which might reduce the likelihood of fracturing during cooling. The<br>skull would be then replaced and the scalp would be sown up, just as<br>it is done during normal autopsies. This approach would pose some<br>technical challenges but also offer more options. For example, since<br>the brain is just a fraction of the size of the head, the procedure<br>would reduce the long term cost of neuro suspension even further,<br>without greatly increasing the initial expense.<br><br>Rafal<br><br><br> </div>
</div> </div></body></html>