forum.oregoncryo.com

in your opinion, which of your option offers the best micromorts avoided per dollar?

- $400 for chemical preservation of the brain
- $1000 for cryopreservation of the brain with no perfusion
- $2000 for perfusion and cryopreservation

if the more expensive options perform better in terms of micromorts avoided per dollar, then it seems better to gamble the money; for example:
- better to have 1/2.5x chances of cryopreserving the brain with no perfusion over 100% chances of chemical preservation of the brain (if you think the former is more than 2.5x chances as likely to work as the latter)
- better to have 1/2 chances for perfusion and cryopreservation than 100% chances of cryopreservations (if you think the former is more than 2x chances as likely to work as the latter)

The more I research, the more convinced I am that *any* method that preserves the basic structure of the brain intact will work. I think chemical preservation will work. I think cryopreservation will work - provided, that is, that the fragile supply of care and liquid nitrogen is uninterrupted. I think that chemical preservation is the most robust method, and allows for disruptions in society and does not depend on a regular supply of anything, and so I prefer it.