this, in fact Brunol’s written protocol is a landmark of early cryonics literature, worth studying both for its general outlook and philosophical touches, and for the details of his proposed procedure, which, allowing for variations and refinements, have served as guidelines or food for thought ever since.
Robert Nelson, private communication, 25 Mar. 2007.
“A landmark event of this time was the 1972 perfusion and freezing of Clara Dostal by CSNY which introduced glycerol in appreciable concentrations and produced no edema.”
James Bedford cryopreservation, January 12-13, 1967. Iron Heart piston rests on Bedford’s chest, oxygen cylinder stands at right.
cryoprotections. However, injection was specifically into one or the other of the carotid (neck) arteries which it appears was intended to facilitate protection of the brain16 (see below). Surviving details of what happened, as with most of the early cases, are scanty; though seemingly clear in these broad outlines. (At least Bedford’s frozen remains are still maintained in liquid nitrogen—at Alcor since the 1980s—so someday much more should be learned about this first case, hopefully along with a successful reanimation!) In any case Bedford received standby, stabilization, and cryoprotection. Admittedly all three were quite limited, as judged in the glaring light of hindsight; still the whole affair was a landmark in early cryonics history. About a month after the freezing, Brunol completed a protocol for perfusion and 34
freezing that was printed as an appendix in Robert Nelson’s 1968 book, We Froze the First Man, which recounts the Bedford freezing.17 The book, mainly focusing on the dramatic rather than the technical elements of this first real cryonics case18, refers inaccurately to the protocol as “the method” that was used in the freezing, though also cautioning that “theory and practice are widely divided here.” Actually there were major discrepancies between what Brunol and assistants did and the written protocol—see below. Presumably Brunol felt justified in the choices that were made, based on the conditions at hand. As he said afterward, “I only had a few days to prepare the equipment for the freezing. Therefore, in my opinion, the method used for Dr. Bedford was very far from being satisfactory.”19 Aside from Cryonics / September 2013
Here I briefly I mention Brunol’s overall rationale for proceeding with freezing even though successful revivals from such a state had not occurred (other than Suda’s results). Many scientists thought (and the attitude persists today) that “freeze now” advocates were going too far and human cryopreservations should not occur “until the process is perfected.” Brunol in introductory remarks to his protocol notes that “Professor Suda successfully revived a cat brain after six months of storage in a frozen state” then offers a touching rebuttal to those who would postpone efforts to save human lives through a similar approach. “How can I tell a dying man, begging for life: ‘I cannot do anything for you. The lack of financing did not permit experiments in freezing large animals; therefore, it would be unscientific to attempt to send your body to future generations in the best condition of conservation. I am sorry, but I do not want to ruin my reputation.’ A wealthy man does not have anything to lose in being frozen and I hope that future generations will be able to repair the damages produced by my method.”20 (The unwealthy can also take part, as cryonics organizations have carefully provided for, after some initial, disastrous mistakes in which funding ran out and patients were lost.) Brunol’s protocol has three stated objectives: (1) protection of the brain, (2) www.alcor.org