Cryogenic--will we be able to be revivied?

[Biochemist]

Care to support that?

TM- you are launching again, and I can't tell what is setting you off. We are discussing attempts to freeze higher life forms. My point is that they freeze too slowly, and that they incur tissue damage during the freezing process unless there is an appropriate antifreeze. These two issues casue significant and different problems. Are you actually contesting this???

So are you asserting that a hibernating bear ends up as a set of bones in a pile of pungent goo? Care to support such a position?

You have probably noticed that hibernating bears are not frozen, ergo they would have intact gut linings. What in the world got your dander up?

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Care to support that?

 

Biochemist: TM- you are launching again..

 

No I am not. And I don’t appreciate your childish attempts to twist reality.

 

Biochemist: …. and I can't tell what is setting you off.

 

And I can’t tell what you are talking about. You are imagining things Biochemist.

 

I am so sorry that I did the correct thing and asked you to support your unsupported assertion. Gee, I guess that means I’m foaming at the mouth, right? You’re ridiculous.

 

It's seems pretty obvious that you can't stand your ground against me in a fair debate, so you try to gain some advantage by accusing me of "launching" and being "set off", hoping that you can substitute your illusion for facts.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Care to support that?

 

Biochemist: We are discussing attempts to freeze higher life forms.

 

FALSE!!! You can’t even follow a simple exchange. But of course, it is – supposedly – my fault for what you claim is just some kind of a misunderstanding?!?!

 

 

WE - in our exchanges - are discussing a side issue about suspended animation/hibernation-like states.

 

Here, let’s go back and look at the relevant posts to see what WE are actually discussing.

 

TeleMad: However, scientists have found that if oxygen is 'truly' eliminated - anoxia, not just hypoxia - then cells of mice, nematodes, etc. can go into a state of 'suspended animation', from which they can be fully revived. So either of the two 'extemes' seem compatible with life: normoxia or anoxia, but the middle ground (hypoxia) is very destructive. It appears that when cells still have some oxygen they attempt to carry on as usual, but can't, and so are damaged and die. But when they are 'totally' deprived of oxygen the basically throttle down to a nearly inactive state that is protective. The scientists have been successful with different organisms using either carbon monoxide or H2S (hydrogen sulfide -a poison) because of their 'anti-oxygen' properties that help push past hypoxia and into anoxia.

 

Even mammals as "high" as dogs and swine have been put into a state of suspended animation for an hour or more and then revived successfully .. I had no idea this could be done with organisms that complex!

 

The scientists are optimistic that humans too may have a hidden system at the cellular that allows us and/or our organs to be placed into suspended animation: it could help preserve organs for transplant and potentially be used to help trauma victims make it to the ER in better condition.

 

See what I started talking about? Suspended animation/hibernation-like states.

 

Did you ignore what I said? Nope, you referenced what I said.

 

Biochemist: TM's [TeleMad’s] point about anoxia is true, but the feasibility of getting an entire organism anoxic before incurring damage in nil. Further, there is more to worry about than anoxia/hypoxia. We freeze cells to prevent other bad things from happening (think about anaerobes in your gut going wild).

 

You directly referenced what I said, and what I discussed was, yep, suspended animation/hibernation-like states.

 

You then went on to say that more is needed – we can't rely on forcing anoxia, to put the person into a suspended animation/hibernation-like state, we also need to freeze cells. What happens if we don’t go the extra step to freeze cells? You said anearobic gut bacteria are going to go wild. Now, obviously you aren’t saying that anaerobic gut bacteria are going to go wild if we are frozen, nor if we are in our normal state, so these make it the logical conclusions that your comment about gut bacteria relates to suspended animation/hibernation-like states even stronger; especially since you just got done referencing statements I made about it!

 

TeleMad: During suspended animation tissues remain intact. In fact, scientists demonstrated that tissues are more resistant to damage when an organism is in suspended animation than when it is not. So, the normal epithelial lining of the GI tract would prevent the gut bacteria from spreading outside of the alimentary canal. And without the normal continued supply of incoming nutrients (one doesn't ingest food when in suspended animation), I would imagine that the confined gut bacteria populations would quickly level off, or die off.

 

Again explicitly discussing suspended animation/hibernation-like states.

 

Biochemist: The epithelial linkng would be inactive if it was suspended.

 

Now you explicitly state, “... if it was SUSPENDED”. Note you didn't say FROZEN. Nope, you said, SUSPENDED.

 

Now I quite correctly asked you to support your assertion.

 

TeleMad:

 

*********************************

Biochemist: The epithelial linkng would be inactive if it was suspended.

*********************************

 

 

TeleMad: Care to support that?

 

And then you try to distort reality…

 

Biochemist: We are discussing attempts to freeze higher life forms.

 

Nope. You are wrong.

 

And that’s the reall issue, isn't it. I showed you to be wrong. To try to save face, you disingenuously tried to change history.

 

So you lose both the argument, and some more honesty points.

[Biochemist]

FALSE!!! You can’t even follow a simple exchange. ...See what I started talking about? Suspended animation/hibernation-like states....Did you ignore what I said? Nope, you referenced what I said....You then went on to say...You said ...Now you explicitly state, “... Nope, you said...And then you try to distort reality…Nope. You are wrong....And that’s the reall issue, isn't it. I showed you to be wrong.

Actually, I think you need a dosage adjustment again. Look at this thread TM. There is no emotional load in it, and I did not accuse you of any misrepresentations. What is going on with you???

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: My point is that they freeze too slowly, and that they incur tissue damage during the freezing process unless there is an appropriate antifreeze. These two issues casue significant and different problems. Are you actually contesting this???

 

When you learn how to read, let me know. Until then, your 'counters' are worthless as they are based on concepts I neither stated nor implied.

 

TeleMad: So are you asserting that a hibernating bear ends up as a set of bones in a pile of pungent goo? Care to support such a position?

 

Biochemist: You have probably noticed that hibernmating bears are not frozen,

 

What you did fail to notice is that a hibernation bear is in a suspended animation/hibernation-like state...just as WE have been discussing in our exchanges. WE have NOT been discussing freezing.

 

Learn to read ... learn to follow a simple series of exchanges.

 

Biochemist: ... ergo they would have intact gut linings.

 

Thanks for supporting my position and crushing yours!

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: Actually, I think you need a dosage adjustment again. Look at this thread TM. There is no emotional load in it, and I did not accuse you of any misreprentations. What is going on with you???

 

First, there WAS no emotional load in it UNTIL AFTER YOU, Biochemist, tried to stir it up. You sidetracked the discussion by saying, repeatedly in a single post, that I had lost it. Note so, and a low-life action on your part to boot.

 

Second, I didn't say anywhere that you accused me of misrepresentations. You're delusional again.

 

Third, YOU, Biochemist, are the one who blundered, but then when I showed you to be wrong, you tried to blame me for your error. Another low-life tactic.

 

PS: I wonder how is it okay for Biochemist to say all kinds of derogatory things about me as a person, without any consequences?

[Biochemist]

Hmm, checked my Inbox and found this....Where'd that post go?

Now I am really worried. It is post 21 above. Settle. Settle.

[TeleMad]

Now I am really worried. It is post 21 above. Settle. Settle.

 

 

Too late, I corrected before you posted. HA HA!!!

 

It's nice that instead of admitting your error - as a mature, rational person would do - you instead continue to try to get under my skin.

 

Again, you can't stand your ground against me in an honest debate so you stoop to low-life tactics. You're pathetic.

 

And, YOU LOSE the argument AND also YOU LOSE honesty points, for trying to push blame off onto me for your inabilities to follow a series of simple exchanges. Those facts haven't changed any despite your attempts to divert attention away from them.

 

Have a nice day!

[C1ay]

PS: I wonder how is it okay for Biochemist to say all kinds of derogatory things about me as a person, without any consequences?

How do you know he hasn't received any consequences?

[Fatstep]

If this ever were to be successful then I am pretty sure that they would have to take a human who was either anesthetized or fully aware, because the cells aren't dead, yet. If you freeze a dead person then the cells are more than likely damaged or dead already.