5 ms·

That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever", and n

That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever", and not to be taken seriously. The essence of your argument is circular: it doesn't work because it's quack science, and it's quack science because it doesn't work - but it doesn't matter, because you're going to die anyway. What a cop out. One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator"

jacquesm 11y ago
> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator" That's a bit insulting of you. And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it. I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actually delivering on their promises. And just like those religious groups they always need a little bit more money. It's quack science because none of it works. It will be science once someone can freeze a very small mammal (say a tiny rodent), keep it frozen for a while and then thaw that creature again and it will live a long and healthy life. It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original. Until then it's all just purposefully soft-balled problems that pretend to solve some crucial aspect of the whole chain without actually addressing the main problems head on, just enough 'progress' to keep the funding coming. I make my living debunking bs and this stuff is - to me - a very high grade of it, all I see here is a cynical attempt at getting funding by for instance linking Alzheimer research to this group (which they have absolutely nothing to do with). Feel free to have a different opinion.
- MikeNomad 11y ago
  "It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high resolution scan performed and stored. I would think getting this first part correct would be of the utmost importance. Scan resolutions will continue to improve for any number of reasons beyond this application. It would appear that the primary subject of the OP is both quite relevant, and an important building block, allowing research to move further along this particular approach.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, but we had this building block for a long time and to claim it is novel or even worthy of mentioning as a breakthrough is dishonest at a minimum.
    - MikeNomad 11y ago
      What I get from reading the article and comments is that while the elements of the prize winner's solution have been available, the novelty is in their application. Did someone already arrive at their solution, and simply not try to claim the prize money?
      - polyfractal 11y ago
        I mean, it's not like it's a novel procedure or anything. This is basically how all brains are sectioned for immunohistochemistry. A quick search turned up this protocol, labeled 2006: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/CRGweb/internal/lab_info/Fos_Aur=lie2006.doc http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/CRGweb/internal/l... I don't know when it was first used, it's one of those protocols that every lab has sitting in an ancient three-ring binder. The procedure is essentially the same everywhere, with minor variations depending on the tissue you're working with, the stains, etc: 1. Knock the animal out somehow (usually isoflurane or similar) 2. Perfuse with Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) followed by 2-5% Paraformaldehyde (PFA). You can also use glutaraldehyde, which is better for EM, while PFA is usually better for histochemistry 3. Rinse in PBS for a while 4. Drop the brains into sucrose solutions, let them sit there until they sink. Usually labs will have a few sucrose baths they like to use (e.g. start in 10%, then switch to 30%). Sucrose is the cryoprotectant here 5. Dunk in liquid nitrogen, coat with OCT, mount on cryostat and start sectioning 6. Go about your business staining, etc The only novel thing here, really, is that they perfused the cryoprotectant instead of just letting the brains sit in it for a few days. Letting a rabbit brain soak up sucrose likely takes longer than a mouse, so perfusing would definitely speed up that step. But it's a rather moot point, since fixed brains can chill in refrigerated PBS for a month or two. There's no rush once it's fixed ... that's the point of fixing. I'm with the other folks, this was really just a grab at some money imo. And fancy headlines. There is nothing interesting here. Credentials: worked in neuroscience wet-lab for 5 years.

jacquesm 11y ago

> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator" That's a bit insulting of you. And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it. I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actually delivering on their promises. And just like those religious groups they always need a little bit more money. It's quack science because none of it works. It will be science once someone can freeze a very small mammal (say a tiny rodent), keep it frozen for a while and then thaw that creature again and it will live a long and healthy life. It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original. Until then it's all just purposefully soft-balled problems that pretend to solve some crucial aspect of the whole chain without actually addressing the main problems head on, just enough 'progress' to keep the funding coming. I make my living debunking bs and this stuff is - to me - a very high grade of it, all I see here is a cynical attempt at getting funding by for instance linking Alzheimer research to this group (which they have absolutely nothing to do with). Feel free to have a different opinion.

MikeNomad 11y ago
"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high resolution scan performed and stored. I would think getting this first part correct would be of the utmost importance. Scan resolutions will continue to improve for any number of reasons beyond this application. It would appear that the primary subject of the OP is both quite relevant, and an important building block, allowing research to move further along this particular approach.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes, but we had this building block for a long time and to claim it is novel or even worthy of mentioning as a breakthrough is dishonest at a minimum.
  - MikeNomad 11y ago
    What I get from reading the article and comments is that while the elements of the prize winner's solution have been available, the novelty is in their application. Did someone already arrive at their solution, and simply not try to claim the prize money?
    - polyfractal 11y ago
      I mean, it's not like it's a novel procedure or anything. This is basically how all brains are sectioned for immunohistochemistry. A quick search turned up this protocol, labeled 2006: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/CRGweb/internal/lab_info/Fos_Aur=lie2006.doc http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/CRGweb/internal/l... I don't know when it was first used, it's one of those protocols that every lab has sitting in an ancient three-ring binder. The procedure is essentially the same everywhere, with minor variations depending on the tissue you're working with, the stains, etc: 1. Knock the animal out somehow (usually isoflurane or similar) 2. Perfuse with Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) followed by 2-5% Paraformaldehyde (PFA). You can also use glutaraldehyde, which is better for EM, while PFA is usually better for histochemistry 3. Rinse in PBS for a while 4. Drop the brains into sucrose solutions, let them sit there until they sink. Usually labs will have a few sucrose baths they like to use (e.g. start in 10%, then switch to 30%). Sucrose is the cryoprotectant here 5. Dunk in liquid nitrogen, coat with OCT, mount on cryostat and start sectioning 6. Go about your business staining, etc The only novel thing here, really, is that they perfused the cryoprotectant instead of just letting the brains sit in it for a few days. Letting a rabbit brain soak up sucrose likely takes longer than a mouse, so perfusing would definitely speed up that step. But it's a rather moot point, since fixed brains can chill in refrigerated PBS for a month or two. There's no rush once it's fixed ... that's the point of fixing. I'm with the other folks, this was really just a grab at some money imo. And fancy headlines. There is nothing interesting here. Credentials: worked in neuroscience wet-lab for 5 years.