Could we soon REVERSE death? US company to start trials in Latin America

a reply to: Cygnis

You said:

Living forever only should be available for those who do good things, imho.

Now who gets to decide that? You? or me?

Think about it for a bit.

This is extremely important research.

Not just for the various applications listed in the article like repairing brain damage but actually reversing death itself.

And yes if they are talking about "restarting" brain chemistry at some point, it is "rising the dead" so to speak. You are your brain. The rest of the body is merely a machine-like vessel for it.

Once your brain chemistry is gone, you have moved on. The body may still pump blood, breathe etc. But it is merely an empty shell.

Combine it with age-slowing and de-aging technology that is already in its infancy humanity would become immortal.

I guess it'd also answer the question of the afterlife conclusively once and for all. A scary thought, but life's oldest and greatest mystery would be solved.

I look forward to hearing more about their research

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Informed consent isn't always available. In fact, it usually isn't.

Ethically, most jurisdictions require medical professionals to make every effort possible to save lives unless required otherwise by law, such as in the case of DNRs. That's how cases like the ones Bioquark is researching come into being.

Anyone being maintained on life support after being declared brain-dead, vegetative or legally dead has either not made provisions for discontinuing life support or those provisions aren't being honored. Unless specifically instructed otherwise, doctors are ethically bound to preserve life, and "vegetative" is not always accepted as morally or legally dead. In general, the operative assumption is that an uncommunicative patient presented for medical treatment would wish to live if at all possible, and here we are.

I think the issue has less to do with consent (which would have to be provided by next of kin, anyway) than it does with what constitutes "death".

If they're really dead, they have nothing to lose, and if they're not, they shouldn't be considered dead.

I've seen several horror/sci-fi movies about bringing back the dead.It never ends well

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

.....we'd end up with a lot of living, but brain damaged, people.

So then basically, nothing would change much!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Erm, maybe? ...

One of the snippets taken from the source in the OP states that the procedure HAS NOT been tested on animals - whether or not that is true will never be known. I'm hoping it is true.

a reply to: neoholographic

oh FFS 0- not another one :

please learn the difference between " bran dead " and actual dead

its very important

They're testing to see if they can "revive" the brain through the method, they are not reviving the actual body along with the brain.

If they can, they can then attempt this on severe brain injuries, reversing the damage, etc etc.

They are not reviving what you would call "the person".

It is interesting, and I hope it works.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Good surgeons in Antarctica.

a reply to: neoholographic

But would their brain not be injured to the point of non-function in any case?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

please learn the difference between " bran dead " and actual dead

One happens at breakfast?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

a reply to: Majic

The difference her is medical treatment vs. medical testing. It's being a lab rat and not a patient.

I also disagree with your statement that if your dead you've got nothing to lose. If I'm dead, leave me there. I don't want to come back.