This makes me feel physically ill. It's like something straight out of a sci-fi dystopia, how did this get approved? Who determined that reinjecting biological activity into a human brain is definitely not some form of reanimation? If they're using heavy sedation to prevent electrical activity, is that not tacit admission they're not 100% sure that consciousness might return otherwise? How did this pass ethics review, or did they even bother?
Approved? Ethics review? This is a private company. I was shocked when NYT Daily casually mentioned this exact behavior at Altos last week and just laughed it off. Like what is funny about making infinite torture machines because billionaires want to live forever?
Dude we can't revive brains minutes after cardiac arrest, when they're inside their bodies, even when we're TRYING TO DO SO. You can think about "what if" if you like the though experiment, but seriously arguing that there's any way that brains could recover consciousness the next day because you gave them nutrients is like arguing that voyager could crash back on earth and injure someone after being flung backwards around a loose interstellar body.
This is an interesting point
I think for direct comparison, the way of re-animating the brain described in the article would need to be attempted on the cardiac arrest patient as well so as to be sure it isn’t a “revival”-capable method
Might already be an obvious answer to practitioners in the field