comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

The Future Is Now!

Woman With Terminal Illness Put Into Cryogenic Sleep After Futurists Help Fund The Process


Cryogenics is something we’ve seen often in our favorite sci-fi products but more people are opting to preserve themselves this way. If they can afford it, of course. So when a 23-year-old neuroscience student was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, she asked the internet for help raising the money to freeze herself until a cure is found. The effort was successful and Kim Suozzi is now cryogenically preserved. 

After finding out she only had a few months to live, Suozzi took to Reddit to ask what she should do with her remaining days. The subject of cryogenic preservation was presented and seemingly interested, she updated the post to ask the internet for help. Futurists,  including the Society for Venturism, went on to fundraise and create a charity to help acquire the huge amount of money it would take to make the cryopreservation happen. “This group, a volunteer-run not-for-profit, is no stranger to this process; it has already successfully raised funds for two cryopreservations and is currently working on one urgent case,” writes io9.

Coincidentally enough, in a recent rewatch of the 90s series SeaQuest I saw an episode where a crew member meets a woman at a bar, becomes obsessed with her, then finds out it’s his mother who was cryogenically frozen for 22 years due to a terminal illness. At the time of her awakening, a cure has yet to be found so she goes back in. More recently, we had the Doctor Who Christmas special, “A Christmas Carol,” where a grinch learns to love again thanks to a dying woman in cryo sleep. I’m constantly amazed that things like this are actually possible in our time.

Currently, preservations are done on patients who are clinically dead and Suozzi was pronounced as such on January 17. The procedure was done by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, and io9 points out their standard cryopreservation costs $70,000. ”I have been happy to help the cryonics community, and at times it is hard raise funds for a charity recipient,” said Shannon Vyff, Director of Society for Venturism and a Cryonics Institute member.”Kim’s case was compelling to many people — not only did many cryonicists donate but non-cryonicists as well.”

Suozzi was diagnosed with recurrent Glioblastoma multiforme and discussed her decision making process on reddit. “I am aware of the problems with the current state of cryonics, but I have the hope that technology might come up with a solution in the future. No one knows what technology will be available in 50 years,” she wrote. “Compare the cost of preservation to the cost of traveling overseas to pursue experimental treatments; I think the current state of glioblastoma treatment is just as bleak (if not more), but it doesn’t seem so crazy to pursue those routes. I’m trying to be preserved because I’ve done everything else in my power to help me extend my life. I’ve looked at essentially every diet, supplement, clinical trial, and ‘miracle treatment’ out there. This is the last thing I can possibly do to fight for another chance, and if does happen to work, it will be incredible.”

(via io9)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | | |


  • Anonymous

    Cryogenics / Cryonics is a very expensive gamble, and fraught with debate. Subjects of the process will likely be forced to wait not only for a cure for their disease, but technology up to the task of repairing the damage caused by the freezing process itself. The comment thread on the above-linked i09 story already has quite a spirited debate going.

    While I wish all the best for the woman, and her fellow subjects of the process, I suspect it will be a very long time before any progress will happen, if ever.

  • lemontart

    I can see how this would be compelling. My grandfather died from a glioblastoma multiforme, it was awful he deteriorated so quickly and there was nothing that could have been done. I hope there is something that can be done in the future and that this works out for her and her family.

  • http://twitter.com/SavageMouse SavageMouse

    I don’t mean to be the Doubting Thomas here, but don’t we need to find a cure for death before this technology is even partially useful?

  • http://zadl.org/ Captain ZADL

    That’s what I was thinking too, freezing a recently dead person is still freezing a person who has no life signs. I’m not so sure this is going to work….

  • http://www.facebook.com/josh.nathan1 Josh Nathan

    Well, as long as her husband can keep the Joker and the Penguin from holding her hostage she should be fine. Perhaps he should get someone over at Wayne Enterprises to lend a hand

  • http://twitter.com/nachtritter Duke Fleed

    If the choice is:
    A) Die in a few weeks no matter what
    B) Get frozen with little chance of being ever thawed back into existence

    I’ll pick B anytime. At least there is a chance of being brought back, no matter how unlikely or slim.

  • http://twitter.com/nachtritter Duke Fleed

    Cure for death? Makes me think Red Dwarf…

    “Oh, yes, I expect they cured death the instant we left Earth. I expect doctors’ surgeries are packed with the dead. “Hello, Mrs Johnson, take one of these three times a day, you’ll soon be living again. Carol, next corpse please.” “

  • http://twitter.com/nachtritter Duke Fleed

    I’m just wondering, is there a big risk of ‘data’ being lost during the time frozen? I just wonder how much cellular damage could happen due to the frost and all that. It’s not like we have the technology to register the state of the brain at the time of death (a SFV file of sorts) and create PAR files to detect and repair any “errors” before bringing the subject back to life.

    Maybe someday, though?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Bunnywith Evanjaline Rose

    The strangest part to consider is the fact she died/fell asleep in January of 2013. Whenever she wakes up, whatever time passed will be in the blink of an eye, like falling asleep and waking up eight hours later with no awareness of time having passed.

  • Anonymous

    The unspoken half to option B is “at great expense”. That she got others to foot the bill is only slightly germane.
    Many folks have already said a more benevolent use of the funds collected might have been to donate it to cancer research. She effectively chose “save me, possibly” over “try to save others, possibly”.
    One could argue that her act has brought attention to the issue of curing cancer, but that’s not where the money went.

  • Anonymous

    Looks like we can thaw her back out….

    Cancer Treatment

    No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans were identified in a PubMed search; however, a single small study of intratumoral injection of delta-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme reported potential antitumoral activity.[13,14]

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page5

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16804518?dopt=Abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22555283?dopt=Abstract

  • http://twitter.com/nachtritter Duke Fleed

    That people paid for this doesn’t exclude that they might also donate to cancer research. Your argument reminds me of when people said that the money that went to send a probe to Mars could have been better spent on other things instead. What I’m saying is: one doesn’t exclude the other.

    You are also forgetting that yes, she asked about it, and yes, people suggested the idea to her, and no, she didn’t have the funds to do it herself (she never hid that fact). There were, however, people willing to donate for it. What they do with their money is up to them. If people think it suits their aims (to advance the cause of cryogenics and related research), isn’t it up to them whether they donate or not?

  • Anonymous

    This is just a side comment, but I cringe a bit when “crucial research money for Incredibly Popular-/’Sexy’ Topic-/Well-Funded Disease” is brought up.

    There are a few diseases which are considered cash cows in the world of health/medical funding, almost to the point of negligence of many other diseases. The nebulous umbrella of “cancer” is one, HIV is another. Important research, but not really starving for funding compared to something like, say, hepatitis. My feeling is that for however much the cryo was, cancer research isn’t hurting for it.

  • Anonymous

    She’ll also be one of the first guinea pigs to undergo the unfreezing process — meaning she will probably die, but her death could lead to perfecting the thawing process. So, it could do some good. And the “you could give to a righteous cause” can be used for ANYTHING that isn’t entirely necessary — including a personal computer, a TV, home internet access, going on vacation, buying a latte, etc. If everyone forewent all their excesses, we could probably prevent hunger and extreme poverty around the globe. But here we sit, on our computers…

  • Anonymous

    I helped to raise the money for Miss Suozzi’s
    cryosuspension, yet I would jump to the head of the line of saying that we nonetheless
    need radically better procedures than what today’s cryonics organizations
    offer.

    Fortunately some of today’s mainstream
    neuroscientists have started to head in that direction. Refer to the website of
    the Brain Preservation Foundation:

    http://www.brainpreservation.org/

    “Does cryonics as practiced today
    adequately preserve the synaptic connectivity of an entire human brain?”

    This is also a well-defined scientific question that
    can be answered today. This question is of great importance, particularly to
    terminally ill patients wishing to preserve their memories or identities today,
    for which cryonic preservation of unknown efficacy is presently their only
    alternative.

    We at the Brain Preservation Foundation are
    dedicated to seeing that these questions are answered in a definitive
    scientific manner as soon as possible. To do so we have introduced the Brain
    Preservation Technology Prize – a prize that challenges connectomics
    researchers and cryonics practitioners alike to demonstrate their best whole
    brain preservation techniques on an animal whose brain is then sectioned at 1mm
    intervals and subjected to an independent comprehensive electron microscopic
    sampling survey looking for damage that would destroy synaptic connectivity.
    The Prize is designed to uncover the truth about the quality of today’s
    preservation techniques and to spur research into better techniques.

    In other words, we have ways of making progress in
    improving brain preservation in the here and now with the goal of trying to
    leave personal identity intact, or at least inferable, without having to invoke
    speculative future technologies.

    I also include some background information about
    cryonics for those unfamiliar with its assumptions and arguments:

    1. General
    but outdated background information on the idea, mainly of
    historical interest now:

    2.

    The Prospect of Immortality
    (1964), by Robert Ettinger:

    http://www.cryonics.org/book1.html

    2. “Cryopreservation of
    rat hippocampal slices by vitrification” (a peer-reviewed scientific paper):

    http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf

    Microscopic examination showed
    severe damage in frozen–thawed slices, but generally good to excellent
    ultrastructural and histological preservation after vitrification. Our results
    provide the first demonstration that both the viability and the structure of
    mature organized, complex neural networks can be well preserved by
    vitrification. These results may assist neuropsychiatric drug evaluation and
    development and the transplantation of integrated brain regions to correct
    brain disease or injury.

    3. Mike
    Darwin’s Chronosphere blog:

    4.

    http://chronopause.com/

    Mike goes back nearly to the beginnings of cryonics
    in the late 1960’s, and his blog offers a metaphorical gold mine of
    information, including references to a lot of scientific papers, about the
    field and its current but probably surmountable problems.

    5. The
    X PRIZE Foundation has a concept under consideration for a Cryopreservation X
    PRIZE:

    http://www.xprize.org/prize/cryopreservation-x-prize

    This competition offers two
    benefits to humanity. First, the ability to increase the number and
    availability of transplantable organs for patients with organ failure; and
    second, the ability to move forward the science of human cryopreservation which
    offers the ability to preserve patients with incurable diseases until a time
    when medical science has sufficiently progressed to be able to treat the
    disease.

    5. MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung defends cryonic suspension as a feasible
    scientific-medical experiment in his book Connectome, and he
    spoke at Alcor’s conference in Scottsdale, AZ, on October 20, 2012:

    http://alcor.org/conferences/2012/index.html

    http://hebb.mit.edu/people/seung/

    http://www.amazon.com/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring-Makes/dp/0547508182

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100220308/Aschwin-de-Wolf-s-review-of-Connectome-by-Sebastian-Seung

    From ALCOR-40 CONFERENCE REVIEW:

    http://www.alcor.org/magazine/2013/01/16/alcor-40-conference-review/

    Sebastian Seung,
    Ph.D.

    Day One of the conference ended with
    Sebastian Seung’s “Connectomics and Cryonics,” followed by a discussion of his
    talk. Seung began by explaining that connectomics is the application of
    techniques such as 3D imaging to build high-resolution maps of neural
    connections. The resulting map is known as the connectome. While working in the
    field at MIT, Seung met Alcor member and Harvard neuroscientist Kenneth
    Hayworth. When talking with Hayworth one day, Seung realized the implications
    of connectomics for cryonics and included some of his thoughts on the subject
    in his book Connectome, which elicited varied reactions.

    Starting with the hypothesis that
    “you are your connectome” (reminiscent of “The Astonishing Hypothesis” of
    Francis Crick), Seung presented evidence from neuroscience that
    chemopreservation successfully preserves brain structure as evidenced by
    reconstructions using serial electron micrographs (EM). He then asked whether
    memories can be “read” from such connectomes and discussed what kinds of
    structural information might be important to answering such questions.
    Ultimately, he concluded that connectivity, including the shapes of neurons and
    locations of synapses, is what must be preserved in order to construct the
    identity contained within.

    But Seung wonders how well cryonics
    preserves brain structure compared to chemical preservation methods.

    To that end, Seung and Hayworth
    announced the Technology Prize to be awarded by the Brain Preservation
    Foundation to the first individual or team to demonstrate a technique capable
    of preserving a human brain for long-term storage with high fidelity. The
    current contenders for the first stage of the prize have employed both chemo-
    and cryopreservation methods, but the required imaging and analyses of these
    samples has not yet been completed. Seung’s presentation was followed by a
    relatively long discussion with the audience, which quickly turned into a
    debate about the merits of chemopreservation and cryopreservation. Topics
    discussed included the long-term stability of chemopreserved brains and whether
    the Technology Prize is neutral between both approaches.

    Which leads to:

    6. The Brain Preservation Foundation:

    http://www.brainpreservation.org/

    “Does cryonics as
    practiced today adequately preserve the synaptic connectivity of an entire
    human brain?”

    This is also a well-defined
    scientific question that can be answered today. This question is of great
    importance, particularly to terminally ill patients wishing to preserve their
    memories or identities today, for which cryonic preservation of unknown efficacy
    is presently their only alternative.

    We at the Brain Preservation
    Foundation are dedicated to seeing that these questions are answered in a
    definitive scientific manner as soon as possible. To do so we have introduced
    the Brain Preservation Technology Prize – a prize that challenges connectomics
    researchers and cryonics practitioners alike to demonstrate their best whole
    brain preservation techniques on an animal whose brain is then sectioned at 1mm
    intervals and subjected to an independent comprehensive electron microscopic
    sampling survey looking for damage that would destroy synaptic connectivity.
    The Prize is designed to uncover the truth about the quality of today’s
    preservation techniques and to spur research into better techniques.

  • Canisa

    A ‘single’ ‘small’ study reported ‘potential’ improvement? I’m going to go ahead and say it’s jumping the gun a bit to pull her out of suspension right now.

  • Anonymous

    Your points generally suggest that while cryogenics may some day be viable, right now it’s not as much so, and the possibility of people preserved with today’s processes have less of a chance than those processed x-period of time in the future. To make a general comparison, as good as sound technology gets today and in the future, they may be able to perfectly duplicate an LP in good to mint condition, there’s only so much that can be done with a century-old wax cylinder stored in a garage.

    A subject today’s hope of being recovered, revived and cured are still very slim indeed. And the chances of the first two are, I’d bet, eve more slim than the third.

  • Anonymous

    The important distinction is that the things we buy for ourselves have a practical use, be it simple entertainment, or the creation of things to potentially help, or at least entertain others. Her choice has very little practical use – there’s only the slimmest chance that she will be revived and cured, and does NOTHING directly to actually bring about the cure. One could argue that her processing will bring attention to bringing about a cure, but so would have a fundraiser to collect money for the cause (The “Match it for Pratchett” Alzheimer’s campaign comes to mind as a good example).

    As another poster on the original story said, she’s effectively bought herself a very expensive coffin.

  • Anonymous

    It makes her feel better about the prospect of dying at the age of 23 and eases her fear. It gives her hope. I think that more useful than the 5 minutes of joy I got from my peppermint mocha last week. You don’t think there was a sense of relief in the weeks leading up to the procedure? I’m not saying your original point was incorrect, I’m saying that if you have ever bought something that wasn’t necessary — if you every went on vacation, went to the movies, ate at a restaurant, bought a book/CD/DVD/cup of coffee or piece of jewelry, etc — then you’re a hypocrite. You should give all that money to charity. Over the course of your lifetime it would be a sizable sum.

  • Anonymous

    Does the Michael J. Fox Foundation raise money to have Mr. Fox frozen, or does it raise money to cure Parkinson’s? Was it called “The Get Christopher Reeve Out of his Wheelchair and to Hell With Everybody Else Foundation”? both used their celebrity to call attention to afflictions that affect many people, directly and indirectly. They did not ask only for themselves to benefit; indeed, just the opposite.

    “I’m not saying your original point was incorrect, I’m saying that if you have ever bought something that wasn’t necessary — if you every went on vacation, went to the movies, ate at a restaurant, bought a book/CD/DVD/cup of coffee or piece of jewelry, etc — then you’re a hypocrite.”

    Well, then you are trying to say my point was incorrect, by claiming that if I believe one choice over how a cancer-related donation should be made, I must then scroll out and use that rule on every facet of my life and not make ANY purchases, cancer-related donation or not. You’re conflating “How one chooses to donate to charity” and “whether one has chosen to donate all their discretionary funds to charity”.

    I’m discussing specific money donated to one cause over another. You’re discussing every purchase made by every person in their entire lives. Do you see why the two don’t compare properly?

    She had an opportunity to bring attention to raise funds for cancer research, and she chose to raise money for her own potential gain. I didn’t call her any names, but merely suggested the money and attention could have gone in another direction. You claim I’m a hypocrite for buying a book. Do you see how those two statements are not about the same subject?

    Argument by hyperbolic expansion rarely works. If I’m not discussing every single purchase a person makes, There’s no need for me to defend them.

  • Kevin H

    I am not a religious person by any means but I’m relatively sure that
    whatever nature does with us after we die has been refined and works
    perfectly. To say that we need to find a cure for death is to say that
    we don’t trust the cycle of life. Man is a narcissist and will do
    anything to make himself immortal. I am as fascinated with science as
    the rest of you but I don’t think I want to change life itself because
    of my desires.

  • James Harvey of Toonzone

    And if it was legal too, you would be nothing more than a pile of splattered brains, blood and guts you piece of sh1t! Oh wait my bad, that was a clear insult to all feces in the world! I await the day you are in a graveyard so me and thousands of others can piss on it!

  • Tyler Hopkins

    When someone says “cure for death” they don’t mean a magical elixir that, when injected into a corpse, brings it back to life. What they mean is a medical process that eliminates the inevitability of death.

    Almost every animal on the planet suffers from the aging process. Every time our cells replicate, the process becomes less efficient, until it stops working altogether. That’s why our skin wrinkles, our bones weaken, and our eyesight dulls.

    Not so for Lobsters. As far as science can tell, lobsters do not have this problem. They cannot die of old age, and the greatest threat to their lives is how delicious they are with butter.

    If you’re not a religious person, then that should help you understand that there is no meaning to death, or all things would have an expiration date.

    I can only theorize why it is evolutionarily advantageous for lobsters, but not humans, to be basically immortal (I assume it has something to do with food scarcity?) but you have to remember that human beings are no longer fully subject to natural selection. If we want to progress biologically as a species, we’re probably going to have to do it through artificial means.

    We’ve already increased our average life expectancy by decades, and eradicated illnesses that used to decimate us in infancy. Eradicating death by old age is not only possible in nature, it’s inevitable in medical science.

  • Anonymous

    I agree… if it were up to me, I’d be frozen while I’m still in my last days. But we haven’t made enough inroads against the religious zealots yet to be able to request something like that.

  • Anonymous

    And you’re welcome to your choice. When your time comes, no-one is going to tell you that you can’t die (unless of course you’re suffering from a painful, terminal illness and want your suffering to end).

    I personally think society’s official stance on death… that you shouldn’t kill yourself no matter what, that you die when nature (usually meaning God) says you should die, is preposterous. But I wouldn’t have a problem with that view, except that they also try and dictate to me how I can and can’t exit this world.

  • Phruizler

    “I’m discussing specific money donated to one cause over another.”

    Well then you’re making an unfounded assumption, because you have exactly zero evidence to support that people donated to this cause OVER another cause. It’s likely that if someone donated to this cause, they donate to many causes, and it’s also likely that many people only donated to this cause because of the novelty of it. Either way, neither of us have any idea what the donating habits of the people who contributed are, so discussing it is baseless and you should stop trying to make a point out of it.

    Also, “She had an opportunity to bring attention to raise funds for cancer research, and she chose to raise money for her own potential gain.” Are you serious? What was her opportunity, that she had cancer? Literally millions of people die of cancer every year, are they selfish because they don’t use the opportunity to raise funds for their disease? She wasn’t famous, she had no opportunity to raise awareness for cancer any more than Joe Schmoe with liver cancer does. The only reason she BECAME famous is because she chose to focus on cryogenically freezing herself. So I fail to see how she selfishly squandered her opportunity to become a champion of cancer research (a mightily struggling field, as we all know).

    And by “argument by hyperbolic expansion” I think you mean slippery slope, or maybe reductio ad absurdum, since whatever you said is made up and makes you sound moronic (I’ll give you a hint: hyperbolic refers to geometry, it’s not the adjective of hyperbole).

  • Jonathan

    Clearly Science does not understand how the universe works. How dare one suggest this poor woman spend money to this ponzi corporation. The soul lives in the body. When you die the soul leaves the body. What really makes YOU who “YOU” are is the soul, not the brain. You are a spiritual being living a physical existence. Artificial-reincarnation…smh. How dare you play the universe. I won’t even say g-d because I know the pro-nly science individuals will have a fit. She has transitioned to another plane, another existence in the universe. May her physical body provide nourishment for the grounds she lay beneath. She is fine and well, as she takes the next step in spiritual transition.

  • Anonymous

    The bible says god helps those who help themselves. if a person is bleeding should we not stop the bleeding? If a person is sick should we not give them medicine? This is just another medical treatment to prolong our lives. Rejecting medical care is a rejection of free will, and rejecting free will goes against Jesus’s teachings.

  • Jonathan

    I’m sorry, my pendulum does not swing between science and religion, however if you would care to negate religion for spirituality, then I would be most obliged to converse. How does one truly help anyone in life, including one’s own. ‘Tis, not defined by the monetary charities or even words that are spoken, but the love that is given forth. All one had to do was reply to this woman’s post. To show compassion and love and care for another spiritual being. That my friend, is all the help she needed. How can she truly help herself—to love herself and believe that it didn’t matter how long a physical life she lived, but during those years how she lived it, and how many people she touched. The medical treatment is not to prolong life but to restart it. I don’t believe deep down her soul would have cared to return. Her mission had been accomplished. She touched millions of lives…

  • Anonymous

    You know nothing more than anyone else and to think you do is true ignorance.

  • Jenkins

    When you look at the world around you, do you really see a need to ensure an indefinite life-span for all the people around you? The earth is already clogged to the brim with billions of useless people, what on earth makes you think that even a moderate amount of them should be kept around, piling up? Especially considering that a best case scenario would be to use that technology to ensure the long-term survival of our scientific and cultural geniuses, but the reality is that it would immediately fall into the hands of TV stars, politicians, professional athletes, and the Koch brothers.

  • Jenkins

    When you look at the world around you, do you really see a need to ensure an indefinite life-span for all the people around you? The earth is already clogged to the brim with billions of useless people, what on earth makes you think that even a moderate amount of them should be kept around, piling up? Especially considering that a best case scenario would be to use that technology to ensure the long-term survival of our scientific and cultural geniuses, but the reality is that it would immediately fall into the hands of TV stars, politicians, professional athletes, and the Koch brothers.

  • Jonathan

    The ignorance lies in swinging that pendulum to either side. I think there is a true need in the scientific community for spirituality. For your information, I have astral projected on multiple occasions so I am quite aware of the spiritual aspect of my existence. I apply this knowledge accordingly.

  • http://lukeparrish.rationalsites.com Luke Parrish

    At the temperatures involved, no additional data will be lost for millions of years. There are two reasons for this; the viscosity is extremely high, and the rate of chemical reactions at such a temperature is low.

    The frost concern is dealt with by perfusing with high concentrations of cryoprotectant, such that no ice crystals can form. This is called “vitrification” and essentially means that the tissue has been turned into a low-temperature glass. The main risk of this approach is that the toxicity of the chemicals (and dehydration effects from their interaction with the blood-brain barrier) erases data. New research needs to be done to eliminate these factors.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly, so then that begs the question, is she already awake in the future?

  • Anonymous

    …generally typing, in this matter “at great expense” has been a myth….most suspensions have been paid for by life insurance policies….if one is reasonably healthy, getting one is possible….I wish those who set up this myth as a non-starter would find something better to do…it isn’t helping…

  • Shiggity Shwa

    no it does not, and no she is not.

  • Shiggity Shwa

    “Cure for death” is ill-defined. Could future technology take a human brain that has been preserved and provide it with the physiological processes it needs to function the way it did before it was preserved? That’s the relevant question, and I’d argue the answer is yes. Do we need to find a magic wizard that casts resurrection spells on corpses? I’d argue the answer is no, we fucking don’t.

  • Shiggity Shwa

    I doff my cap to you, sir

  • Anonymous

    Obviously you are a troll, and highly intelligent compared to an apple.

  • Shiggity Shwa

    I’m not the one posting retarded questions

  • Jacob Stephen Cook

    Cryopreservation is no fundamentally different from any other highly experimental medical procedure, and actually costs very little with life insurance, far less than cancer treatment, for instance. Furthermore, the development of suspended animation (cryostasis without damage) would revolutionize medicine, and cryonics encourages such research.