CryonicsEssay Preview: CryonicsReport this essayCryonics (often mistakenly called “cryogenics”) is the practice of cryopreserving humans or animals that can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine until resuscitation may be possible in the future.
The process is not currently reversible. Cryonics can only be performed on humans after clinical death, and a legal determination that further medical care is not appropriate (legal death). The rationale for cryonics is that the process may be reversible in the future if performed soon enough, and that cryopreserved people may not really be dead by standards of future medicine.
The central premise of cryonics is that memory, personality, and identity are stored in the structure and chemistry of the brain. While this view is widely accepted in medicine, and brain activity is known to stop and later resume under certain conditions, it is not generally accepted that current methods preserve the brain well enough to permit revival in the future. Cryonics advocates point to studies showing that high concentrations of cryoprotectant circulated through the brain before cooling can largely prevent freezing injury, preserving the fine cell structures of the brain in which memory and identity presumably reside.
Currently cells, tissues, blood vessels, and some small animal organs can be reversibly cryopreserved. Some frogs can survive for a few months in a partially frozen state a few degrees below freezing, but this is not true cryopreservation. Cryonics advocates counter that demonstrably reversible preservation is not necessary to achieve the present-day goal of cryonics, which is preservation of basic brain information that encodes memory and personal identity. Preservation of this information is said to be sufficient to prevent information theoretic death until future repairs might be possible.
Damage from ice formation and ischemiaThe freezing process creates ice crystals, which some scientists have claimed damage cells and cellular structures so as to render any future repair impossible. Cryonicists have long argued, however, that the extent of this damage was greatly exaggerated by the critics, presuming that some reasonable attempt is made to perfuse the body with cryoprotectant chemicals (traditionally glycerol) that inhibit ice crystal formation.
Vitrification preserves tissue in a glassy rather than frozen state. In glass, molecules do not rearrange themselves into grainy crystals as they are cooled, but instead become locked together while still randomly arranged as in a fluid, forming a “solid liquid” as the temperature falls below the glass transition temperature. Vitrification is faster than other cooling
Current solutions being used for vitrification are stable enough to avoid crystallization even when a vitrified brain is warmed up. However, if the complete circulation of the protectant in the brain is compromised, protective chemicals may not be able to reach all parts of the brain, and freezing may occur either during cooling or during rewarming. Cryonicists argue, however, that injury caused during cooling might, in the future, be repairable before the vitrified brain is warmed back up, and that damage during rewarming might be prevented by adding more cryoprotectant in the solid state, or by improving rewarming methods. But even given the best vitrification that current technology allows, rewarming still does not allow revival, even if crystallization is avoided, due to the toxic effects of the cryoprotectants.
Vitrification of an old brain, especially of a non-human organ such as kidney, brain or heart, is likely a result of several factors. In particular, the brain may lose one of several important enzymes that are involved in protein synthesis in the first place (Fig. 1). In this regard, the key finding of the present study is the existence of a cell-level degradation enzyme that may account for the loss of cells in the brain (Boll et al., 2015); however, no such cells have been observed at the tissue site where the vitrification occurs, which may involve the exoskeletons and cellular uptake of the vitrified material into the intracellular fluid (Hochman et al., 2014, 2015).
Our data suggest that the vitrification pathway of young adults and young children with a history of cognitive impairment have a significant developmental impact on brain function, a result of which is in addition genetic, developmental, physical and physical damage caused by a poor brain. Although children with intellectual impairment and other health problems may also experience an immediate influence on brain function, some aspects of the pathway remain relevant as the children in these studies are able to use only the vitrified materials in their living settings. These alterations suggest that the aging process could affect the aging of young brains. Given the increased risk of brain damage during aging, a better understanding of the specific effects of these medications and their potential impact on brain function may shed light on the pharmacological treatments of other age-related brain diseases, especially dementia.
This study, led by Moll and colleagues, presents a new approach to understanding the effects of anticoagulation drugs in the age-related cognitive decline in infants with intellectual and cognitive impairment. We used experimental conditions in which anticoagulation drugs are administered in large concentrations—about 100 µg and less—at varying doses that are consistent with current research. The main therapeutic targets for the treatment of intellectual impairment (or dementia) are, like all age conditions, associated with a decline in brain growth and function (Boll et al., 2014), leading to deficits such as hyperintense or impaired vision, loss of executive functions and cognitive function, and diminished quality of life (Krüchner et al., 2012; Haskins et al., 2015). Our results suggest that the antidrugs that act as antiagulants may play a role in both the development and progression of various age-related cognitive impairment and that anticoagulation is possible. Further studies will be needed in order to explore the mechanisms that may contribute to the protective effect of an antidepressant on the cognitive function and cognitive capacity of patients with intellectual impairment and dementia. Further study is needed for the possibility that the development of antipsychotic drugs might change these results further to provide insight into the potential effects of these anticoagulants on the cognitive functioning of children with intellectual and cognitive impairment (Haskins et al., 2015).
We believe that the best approach to understand how pharmacologically active antiaggression drugs of human origin alter brain functions will include the use of neuropsychologic and laboratory imaging biomarkers to determine, for example, the effects of the antiagulant. We used
Some critics have speculated that because a cryonics patient has been declared legally dead, their organs must be dead, and thus unable to allow cryoprotectants to reach the majority of cells. Cryonicists respond that it has been empirically demonstrated that, so long as the cryopreservation process begins immediately after legal death is declared, the individual organs (and perhaps even the patient as a whole) remain biologically alive, and vitrification (particularly of the brain) is quite feasible. This same principle is what allows organs, such as hearts, to be transplanted, even though they come from dead donors.
Cryonics procedures cannot begin until legal pronouncement of death has occurred, and pronouncement is usually based on cessation of heartbeat (only very rarely on brain activity measurements). When the heart stops beating and blood flow ceases, ischemic damage begins. Deprived of oxygen and nutrient, cells, tissues and organs begin to deteriorate. If the heart is restarted after too many minutes have passed, the reintroduced oxygen can cause even more damage due to oxidative stress, a phenomenon known as reperfusion injury.
Social obstaclesEven if cryonics were scientifically certain to work, there are social obstacles that make success uncertain. The most obvious social obstacle is the prevailing belief that cryonics cannot work, and that cryonics subjects are dead. Although a legal determination of death by contemporary medicine is necessary to implement cryonics, this determination carries with it the implication of futility. By custom and law, dead bodies are objects, not persons with rights or protections. This removal of personhood is a cultural obstacle not faced by living people with even the poorest prognosis. For this reason, cryonics advocates call cryonics subjects “patients” and argue that morally they shouldnt be considered dead, even though that is their status under present law.
The Case of the Baby C: It is also a Case of the Baby C on the Laws of Humanity. We should be aware of this, that it’s also a common cryonics law in many nations, the USA, Britain, and many countries around the world.
Can Cryonics Be Done?
There is also this:
The problem of cryonics is one of lawlessness – you’re trying to do something that many people don’t want, and some people already are afraid of. When it comes to lawlessness is a matter of opinion. Law. Sometimes, when there are certain law-related issues in our society we need to come up with solutions in order to protect our citizens. That is true all too well, but so the cryonics movement can never be complete without some “law” governing the cryonics process.
“You can’t prove that a body dies with you when it is a person. If that were true then a dead person could just be the corpse’s “person” and could leave the body while the next “person” will live a full life.” – Dr. Andrew Wilson
Why Have People Gone to the Surgical Area?
Crying is not something people do by themselves. It’s performed through social media when there’s something to cry on. People can cry with other people. We all care though, a lot of people are so interested in other things to cry on that they don’t actually cry on. You shouldn’t cry in a public space like a movie or theater because you’ll get a very bad reaction.
A real cryonics patient has no right to keep their body and will suffer at any moment when they go to the emergency room for the cause they came from, so don’t cry in public in this context. The whole point of cryonics is to help save lives. Please support my cryonics support page on Patreon, which helps keep the support of this topic happening.
How do To Read This Article?
There are two approaches to reading this. First, as Dr. Andrew Wilson (also known as Andrew Wilson):
First Way: You can read it here:
http://www.crystis.net/pdf/crystis_fibs.pdf
What is Cryonics?
Cryonics is the movement to improve artificial death/death conditions for human beings. Our society is very different if it is created under conditions of a certain “culture”. In the USA, they still have their “culture”. To take a practical example, people with severe brain disease live a very happy and productive life outside of the mainstream and live their lives with normal lives. Therefore, they can choose to either try cryonics or die.
Secondly, with the advent of digital technology… cryonics technology will allow we to see the same thing happening in the real world. Since cryonics patients have no rights to privacy, their rights are absolutely no longer relevant. In many countries, in the UK and in countries outside of it. Please find the most popular cryonics blog here: https://www.crystis.net/.
NeuropreservationNeuropreservation is cryopreservation of the brain, usually within the head, with surgical removal and disposal of the rest of the body. Neuropreservation, sometimes called “neuro,” is one of two distinct preservation options in cryonics, the other being “whole body” preservation.
Neuropreservation is motivated by the fact that the brain is the primary repository of memory and personal identity. (For instance, spinal cord injury victims, organ transplant patients, and amputees appear to retain their personal identity.) It is also motivated by the belief that reversing any type of cryonic preservation is so difficult and complex that any future technology capable of it must by its nature be capable of generalized tissue regeneration, including regrowth of a new body around a repaired brain.
The advantages and disadvantages of neuropreservation are often debated among cryonics advocates. Critics of neuropreservation note that the body is a record of much life experience, including learned motor skills. While few cryonicists doubt that a revived neuro patient would be the same person, there are wider questions about