[dahart]

The serious answer is that resuscitation of cryopreserved humans is not currently possible and has never been done. We have no idea whether anything from the brain or the body is salvageable, nor whether starting sooner or later makes any difference.

Perhaps one way to think about it is that cryopreservation is a modern alternative to a grave burial, and the thing most salvaged is the hope and memories in the family and friends of the deceased.

[geographomics]

I agree. Resuscitation seems unlikely, given that the freezing process itself damages the tissues, as well as the degradation that has already happened post-mortem.

[reasonattlm]

They don't freeze, they vitrify. That's a very big difference.

http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth2

We can debate the degree to which cryoprotectant perfuses the brain outside a laboratory test of tissue, but vitrification appears to preserve the fine structure of tissue very well:

http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/

There is evidence of synaptic preservation in preserved and restored nematodes:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/rej.2014.1636

[eli_gottlieb]

Well, they resuscitated a nematode. That's... actually worth updating my view of how well they can preserve things. I should go ask people for help interpreting that paper.

[toomuchtodo]

100 years from now is a long time for medical advancements. Would you imagine having an MRI or CT scan 100 years ago? Or that they'd induce hypothermia in an emergency room to stave off damage from cardiac arrest [1]?

[1] http://www.popsci.com/node/205352