Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen

Posted by Soulskill on from the rest-in-peace dept.

merbs writes: After losing a long battle with brain cancer, 2-year-old Matheryn Naovaratpong became the first minor ever to be cryogenically frozen. This article is the story of how a Thai girl was frozen in Bangkok and shipped to Arizona to have her brain preserved in liquid nitrogen, while medical science works on a cure. "Typically we’d move the head from the trunk of the body. We didn't know what their reaction would be from the family, the mortuary, from border officials; this has to go through a number of shipping venues, customs, the TSA and so on. To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

23 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. WHAT? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok.. I read this..

    "To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

    And I think.. what the fuck is wrong with this country???

    1. Re:WHAT? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's probably pretty common in southern border towns.

    2. Re:WHAT? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that a dead 2 year old, who had already had half her brain removed and the other half was seriously damaged, and dunking that in liquid nitrogen with the hope that someday a new body could be built for her and she'd be perfectly normal again ... is a con?

      Oh ... ya ... it is ...

      I don't know how the fuck anyone falls for it. Really... Why would they think that even if their bodies were preserved that long, and the technology was invented to create what's missing, and repair all the damage done by the freezing process, that anyone would spend the 14 bazillion New Earth credits (or whatever currency there is in futureland) to bring some old fucker back?

      In her case, the could have just saved a DNA sample. The story is clear about the condition her brain was in. Half was gone. The other half critically damaged.

      I'd have to think that it would be questionable in futureland to resurrect a 20th century person, even if they were in pristine condition. Say 21 years old with much above average intelligence, who was taught everything that there is to know, with no medical issues, no trauma. Just frozen as-is without cellular damage. Why would anyone opt to wake them up? Just to ask "Hey, so what was life like in the 20th century?"

      The whole cryogenics "industry" is a huge con.

      If these people are religious in the least, they'd have to believe that the soul was trapped in that frozen body until it was awakened. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to reincarnate them. What if they picked the wrong part to freeze? Like, if the soul was really in the liver, or maybe in the spinal cord between C1 and C3. Oops, sorry, we cut that part off.

      And if they aren't religious in the least, why bother? So they can wake up as a curiosity in the future? "Hi Cro-Magnon. Fire hot. We have spoken languages you don't understand. And try to wrap your mind around these three seashells. No more poison ivy toilet paper for you. No, don't hit females with a club to make them your mate/slave."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:WHAT? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're right, anyone in their right mind wouldn't fall for this scam.
      But I suppose that parents who lost their 2 year old kid after a long and painful illness aren't exactly in their right mind.

  2. Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?

    1. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people believe in an Invisible Sky Wizard? Why do people play the lottery? It's called Hope and as irrational and non-sensical as it may be it's an essential part of the Human condition.

    2. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3

      I don't think I would get myself frozen, but to take the opposite point of view for a second, no one has any idea what is going to be developed in the medical field. If somehow we can eventually get cells to regenerate themselves and recreate a human body, who really knows what amount we will need replace. Maybe the freezing process will slow the decomp. ENOUGH.

    3. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any sort of freezing process destroys every cell wall, basically. The ice crystals that form from the water in our cells are like little glass spikes. There is no coming back from that. You have about as much change of resurrecting a cow from ground up beef.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is why current processes remove as much fluid from the body as possible, inject various chemicals, and freeze as quickly as possible to prevent the formation of ice crystals.

      Animal tests from decades ago show that even "standard" freezing and thawing results in a living, resurrected animal for a few hours.

    5. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by stevedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, hope is a belief that the world and everything in it has potential energy, and that under the right circumstances that can be converted into "kinetic" energy (i.e., the force of change). It is the belief that just because the ball is not moving does not mean the ball cannot move. It also means that just because a person believes that they have no value (or perhaps even currently do not seem to have much value) does not mean that they are, in fact, incapable of having value or of someday recognizing what their value is or could be.

      If "enlightenment" means believing that the world cannot be anything other than it, in its present state, currently is, then I do not want to be enlightened, because my enlightenment would be invalidated one nanosecond later, since even in that time the world would have done that which I had assumed to be impossible, and changed.

    6. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beautifully refuted. Thank you.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Not fully junk by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.

    Why do people still spend money on this?

    It gives them hope. Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not fully junk by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.

      In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.

    2. Re:Not fully junk by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...no?

      There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.

      For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.

      Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:

      1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
      2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
      3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.

      The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.

    3. Re:Not fully junk by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and it's pretty much just a brain, because the other half was already destroyed by cancer.

      That part doesn't make much sense to me at all.
      Spinal Damage. Stopped Heart. Sure.
      Brain injury that prevents consciousness but doesn't seem to impact primary function, maybe.

      But half her brain is gone. What are they preserving, exactly?

    4. Re:Not fully junk by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.

      In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.

      So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.

      But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?

      Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Not fully junk by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No thanks on the bridge, but perhaps you should consider rereading this part, and remembering how logical OR works:

      " it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:

      1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
      2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
      3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech."

      If you dispute that this is a super good guess, then you are claiming that the logical opposite of this is likely. The logical opposite is that "Today's cryo patients are forever dead, BUT patients who die and are incinerated or buried normally are revivable".

      Is that your belief? If you believe that cryo makes someone LESS likely to be revived than turning them into dust and sprinking the dust in a forest, at least link me some good high level druid spells, k?

      Note: If you merely believe that the odds of cryo patients being revived are the same as standard methods of treating the dead (burying or incineration), and that those odds are ZERO, then you are saying that my "super good guess" is without doubt true, based on the first term.

      Nothing in my post claims that cryo produces revivable patients. But it does dispute the above post, that cryo makes people LESS revivable. That should be trivially bullshit.

    6. Re:Not fully junk by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the money spent on cryogenic freezing were donated to cancer research, more cancers might be treatable by now.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  4. So in 300 years... by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    After curing the cancer in 25 years, and tthen 275 years later when we figure out how to reanimate frozen brain cells, this kid's going to be like, "What do you mean I'm an orphan?"

  5. Sheesh by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 3, Funny

    These kids today, with the frozen heads and the music ...

    --

    I bought this house and you know I'm boss
    Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off

  6. Re:Yeah, by blang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup, I use it to save money on my travels.
    Just ship my frozen head with UPS to nearest cryogenic lab, and get stitched up.
    Luckily three are lots of labs that have perfected the technique of splicing together the nerve threads, thawing the body parts, not to mention freezing the body parts without the use of poisonous chemicals preventing the water in the body from crystallizing and ripping the human flesh to shreds during the thawing process.

    Honestly, I think the whole cryogenics industry ought to be frogmarched to jail and never let out. Is it quackery, fraud, and cruel, preying on grieving relatives, selling false hopes, engaging in grotesque experiments with human remains.

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  7. Death ritual by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cryonics is basically like any death ritual (cremation, burring, funerals, etc), Its about the (unlikely) hope of some life after death and giving some measure of closure to the living. Sure its extremely unlikely to go anywhere, chances are some bankruptcy, economic collapse or natural disaster is going to destroy the brains/bodies long before technology advances to a point where they can be revived but who cares? If push comes to shove at a minimum we'll have some fairly well preserved bodies/brains in a few decades/centuries for future scientists to study assuming the company goes bankrupt. If we have a major economic collapse these bodies/brains can join a significant portion of humanities other "accomplishments" (fashion, popular culture, modern movies, etc) in decay. And on the long shot maybe these people will give direct witness to the time period in which they lived if it happens to succeed.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion