&gt; One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of &quot;The Re-Animator&quot;<p>That&#x27;s a bit insulting of you.<p>And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it.<p>I&#x27;ve seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling &#x27;the afterlife&#x27; 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.<p>It&#x27;s quack science because <i>none of it works</i>. 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.<p>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.<p>Until then it&#x27;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 &#x27;progress&#x27; to keep the funding coming.<p>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).<p>Feel free to have a different opinion.