Vitalist Bay had an event in May
https://www.vitalistbay.com/biostasis
Our research scientist, Dr. Andy McKenzie, gave a talk in May that is now online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqRW0_ERVtM
Here's a summary:
0:00 Overview
1:39 Changing definition of death
3:47 Revival
6:35 Structure
8:21 Aldehyde Fixation
9:34 Quality vs cryopreservation
11:14 Perfusion
12:41 Fluid preservation
15:31 Oregon/Sparks Brain Preservation
18:09 Preservation results
19:49 Immersion fixation
20:56 Free option
22:12 Revival preferences
22:51 Death investigations
Questions:
25:43 Aschwin: Embalming
26:14 Jacob: Patient care trust (PCT), succession plan.
27:54 Ben/Ralf: Quality of cryopreservation
29:59 Mark/Ralf: Quality is similar
30:31 Aschwin: Cutoff point for perfusion
31:58 unknown: New body and odds of success
34:19 Max: Autopsy avoidance
35:07 Gennady: Aldehyde crosslinks
36:34 Ben: Temperature of storage
39:31 Aschwin: Immersion vs freeze
Regarding embalming at 25:43: Yes, one implication is that existing mainstream brain banks are full of brains that have not suffered from information theoretic death. Someday, society will realize this. One possible scenario is that Einstein could get revived, for example.
Regarding PCT at 26:14: We have no need for a PCT so we will never have one. The only reason the cryonics companies need a PCT is because their storage technology is so astronomically expensive. They must do something to try to offset that risk to some degree. Since our storage cost is essentially zero, the risk is already inherently lower. Even without a PCT, our risk is much lower than cryonics with a PCT. As for succession, I'm just getting warmed up and will still be around for another 30 to 40 years (50 if antiaging tech would hurry up and get developed). We have a succession plan, but it will get even more robust over the next few years as we build our membership and bring in more research scientists.
Regarding quality of cryopreservation at 27:54: In ideal cases, is the quality of aldehyde preservation really better than cryopreservation? But Ben asked the wrong question. Andy's statement earlier was that aldehyde was the better-validated method and the one that everyone used. That's how science is done, and science says we should use aldehyde. Ben's question was phrased more as a hypothetical without regard to the way that evidence should get incorporated into decision making. But even putting that aside for a second, who cares? No cryonics case ever comes close to those ideal conditions in the first place. In less-than-ideal conditions, the quality of aldehyde is clearly far superior because it completely avoids all ice formation.
Regarding crosslinks at 35:07: Removing crosslinks is no more complicated than fixing the damage from the very best quality cryopreservation possible with today's technology. Andy will tell you that. Brian will tell you that. It's not a difficult question to answer. In other words, this is a complete non-issue. Those who ask that question don't appreciate the level of damage in current cryonics cases.
Regarding immersion vs freeze in low quality cases, Andy mildly stated that immersion would be preferred to freezing in all cases. But he didn't state it strongly or explain again why. No matter how bad the case is, you simply don't ever want to freeze. That just reduces quality even further. Instead, all effort should go into getting aldehyde into that tissue faster. For example, injection would be important, probably with many dozens of injections in order to carefully infiltrate throughout the tissue. This is just so so much better than allowing freezing damage. I suspect Andy didn't get into this because infiltration injection is something that we haven't actively started doing yet. But that certainly doesn't mean that freezing would ever be acceptable!!