5 ms·

I agree. Resuscitation seems unlikely, given that the freezing process itself damages the tissues, as well as the degradation that has already happened post-mor

• reasonattlm 11y ago
  They don't freeze, they vitrify. That's a very big difference. http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth2 http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth2 We can debate the degree to which cryoprotectant perfuses the brain outside a laboratory test of tissue, but vitrification appears to preserve the fine structure of tissue very well: http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/ http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/ There is evidence of synaptic preservation in preserved and restored nematodes: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/rej.2014.1636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/rej.2014.1636
  • eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Well, they resuscitated a nematode. That's... actually worth updating my view of how well they can preserve things. I should go ask people for help interpreting that paper.
• toomuchtodo 11y ago
  100 years from now is a long time for medical advancements. Would you imagine having an MRI or CT scan 100 years ago? Or that they'd induce hypothermia in an emergency room to stave off damage from cardiac arrest [1]? [1] http://www.popsci.com/node/205352 http://www.popsci.com/node/205352