As the Electron Micrographs page itself states, it “was an ideal lab setting which has only a limited resemblance to a human case”. I wonder why there is still so limited literature on neuron/synapses state "immediately" after death, but I remember there was an interesting OC case report prior to the update, where at least there were electron micrographs from a human case.
I guess that the OC website goal is to report only the "results with practical interest" from the researches (that’s probably why there were not specific details about the other “Training/Research” entries within the 42 "cases"), and the result from the “interesting” old Case Report #4 was practically poor (the only information available now comes from web.archive.org and reads “Electron micrograph of immersion fixation with no perfusion. Preservation was very poor. Perfusion is a basic requirement.”), but I remember I read of some loss of synapses… I would like to read of similar things in similar/improved (future) researches/micrographs, but I don’t even know how a cryonics facility can have available an electron microscope.
At this moment, I no longer bother to search this topic in some Alcor or CI page. If anything, I’d prefer searching on google from time to time, finding articles like this: Molecular Communication of a Dying Neuron in Stroke (B Puig - 2018).
I can also read of optimistic titles like synaptic repair after ischemic events, draining optimism even with the same page by reading “some studies describe synaptic modification as a part of death signaling”: I’m not a neuroscience expert at all, but looking for updated info in this manner it becomes easy to desire some additional help to brain preservation, e.g. by some "ASC-improving" drugs to add prior or during the aldehyde administration, if articles like the 2015 one on the dehydroascorbic acid are released more often than a new mice brain electron micrograph from a cryonics point of view.
Welcome to the Oregon Cryonics forum
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
I'm a clinician, not a researcher. So we don't really do research here, but we instead work on refining clinical procedures to make them blazing fast and extremely reliable. I took down that one report #4 precisely because I'm not a researcher. A poor result from someone who doesn't perform research is not worth posting. Other scientists have already published findings regarding the poor ultrastructural quality that results without good perfusion, and they did a much better job of it. However, I do hope to be a clinical expert some day on perfusion. When that day comes, we can easily send samples off for electron microscopy. I wouldn't be doing it as true "research", but more as feedback on the quality of the clinical procedures I'm performing. It's the same reason we do CT scans: for feedback. I suppose good results might be considered new science if the right person published them, but I would be treating the results more as evidence of good clinical techniques. Clinicians publish all the time, but with a focus on clinical results rather than new science.