Yvette d'EntremontBS chemistry, MSc forensic science (self-stated, not independently verified) · science writer, former analytical chemist
Not for her, and not on the evidence available. Revival would require curing the end stage of the illness that killed you, in a body preserved with decades-old technology, and she would rather spend the money now. She does not rule it out.
What it rests onHer column of 1 Mar 2021. She separates cryogenics and cryopreservation, which she calls fascinating and useful and lists working uses for including sperm, eggs and embryos, from cryonics, the revival claim, which is the only part she attacks. She describes the vitrified rabbit brain result accurately as preservation, noting in her own words that it guarantees nothing about reanimation or function, and that many organs have never been successfully thawed. Her conclusion is a personal spending decision, and the sentence right before it is 'I'm not ruling it out'. Her title is the harshest thing in her catalogue and her argument is milder than it.
Source: web.archive.org ↗
