Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

Reminder: This debate is about the “near future,” as opposed to the indeterminate future. Rebuttals (argument 1): “Early 1960s … doctors presumed that within moments after blood ceases to flow the victim’s brain begins to break down, soon rendering them into a vegetative state.” A great decade for medical advancements, but by pro’s own admission doctors thought events that take hours happened almost instantly; that even restoring someone to technical life, would be moot since it would leave them in “a vegetative state.” “Muscle stem cells can remain viable in human cadavers for up to 17 days, a 2012 study found, so long as they are not contaminated by oxygen.” New knowledge almost fifty years too late for Walt. Not getting into this being stem cells only, we are still left with them needing future knowledge to remove oxygen from the corpse, and to recover within “17 days.” “Cool temperature, it turned out, had prevented the woman’s cells from breaking down as quickly as they would have in a warmer environment.” Ten hours, at 68°F, decay slowed. Multiple that level of decay by a 1/1000th the time Walt has been dead (going on to 48 years, or over 17,000 days) and there would be no chance of recovery. This is not even to confuse it with freezing… “The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.” Expect to see this quote again, even more so considering the comparison to fifty year old technology that likely had greater risk of damage. More Rebuttals (argument 2): “Interestingly, Walt's interest in cryogenics is not listed in one, but two biographies.” In short those books suck. In length the Urban Legend website Snopes.com has reviewed both books in question, they were both found to be speculative at best [3]. In Elitot’s 312 page book there was only a single claim, without any source to imply it being more than his imagination. “Claims about Disney's interest come primarily from two of the more recent Disney biographies: Robert Mosley's 1986 effort,Disney's World, and Marc Eliot's 1993 entry, Walt Disney -- Hollywood's Dark Prince. Both books have been largely discredited for containing numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions, rendering them rather untrustworthy as sources of reliable background material. “Eliot's biography, which dwells unrelentingly on every salacious incident and rumor connected with Walt Disney's name, is fairly easy to dismiss. Charitably described as "speculative," it contains a single passage concerning Walt Disney's alleged interest in cryonics: [Pro’s Quote] “Not surprisingly, the source behind this piece of information is nowhere to be found in Eliot's notes. And as there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics, Eliot's "source" was likely nothing more than repetition of rumor” [3]. Mosley’s fares no better to scrutiny. “Mosley's statements regarding Disney's belief in the feasibility of cryonics are somewhat difficult to take seriously, given that his book includes such ludicrously erroneous (or fabricated) statements as: “The surgeons had taken away his diseased lung to examine it, and then were going to preserve it. Walt was pleased when he heard that. He knew enough about cryogenesis by now to be aware that it was important to hold onto all the organs -- just in case the surgeons needed to treat them before putting them back where they belonged.” -Mosley “(Samples of tissue removed during cancer surgery are preserved in formaldehyde, a method of "preservation" which, while useful for microscopy studies, damages the tissue biologically. Organs removed from Disney by his surgeons could never be "put back where they belonged", no matter what the treatment) [3].” Thus if Pro’s books are to be believed, Walt Disney was insisting against medical advice of the time that his cancerious lung had to be put back into place; while at the same time had the rest of the body cremated (see below). “Walt Disney was one for being the first to use some of the latest technology on the market - such as technicolor animations, animatronics, the multiplane camera.” Small misconception about him, he was not merely of the first, he was an inventor of such things as the multiplane camera. However a prodigy in one area, means nothing in the others. Cryonics is a medical technology, thus far outside the area of his expertise [4]. “They cryonically preserve the head of the patient - not the body.” I accept this. As there have been no successful human head transplants, a frozen head cannot be brought back. One day maybe, but the scientist leading the field pins his hope of promise in the procedure on rats, and insists “As the human brain can only survive without oxygen for one hour, the surgeons would have to remove both heads and connect the recipient's head to the circulatory system of the donor body within this time frame” [5]. Another promising development that is half a century too late for Walt. Defense: “Denial by the Disney Family” The family denying it shifts the probability further away from the realm of possibility, yet I feel little need to expand this area beyond the summery from pro save for a couple retorts… “Michael Jackson” Irrelevant, to include the source. Attacking the person of Walt Disney by comparing him to someone who according to pro’s source “spent $35 million to cover up molestations of 24 boys,” is pretty far off topic even for a Red Herring. “If cryonic preservation would have failed…” Pro admits that even if frozen, the procedure could have failed for a host of reasons. This reaffirming the cautions of the American Cryonics Society: “Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1]. According to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation “A body that is not kept frozen is not a pleasant thing, even by non-cryonics standards, and the early failures were many” [6]. “Prehistoric virus” Irrelevant, to include the source. No evidence has been laid out to suggest that Walt Disney is a virus. Guinea Pig and “Vikings” My point that he would not be among the first attempts to revive a cryonic patient (first in last out policy) stand; Viking discovery of North America is a Red Herring. “Whether or not bringing Walt Disney back to life is pointless really a valid argument for asserting that Walt Disney is therefore not frozen in ice?” The point has been either missed, or intentionally ignored. If he is frozen, he was already old. The experts state that old people will remain frozen until aging can be reversed. Aging has not yet been reversed, leaving it another barrier preventing his revival in the near future. “Walt Disney died of lung cancer; but my assertion is that he has been preserved cryonically in order to be resuscitated in the near future. As for whether or not cancer could be cured, is unto itself, a red herring fallacy in light of the actual topic of this debate.” Let’s consider the resolution “Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be [restored to life] in the near future).” That a challenge is made to part two of the resolution, hardly makes it a Red Herring; indeed if either half of the resolution fails the whole resolution is negated. The original intent of being restored in the near future would have already expired, meaning this debate is over the near future to today (as opposed to the near future of flying cars expected by 2013). To clarify, I am making the claim that no one would be intentionally restored until what killed them is reliably cured. That there is no promise of a cure for cancer in the near future, means even if technology to restore his severed head to life existed, it would not be used any time soon. If a cure for all cancers (doubtful) began being tested today, there would still be many years of clinical trials in front of it. Once cancer is cured, then a way to restore dead bodies would need to be found, but as it’s apparently just Walt’s head frozen the indeterminate date in the future for an attempted revival (first patient frozen, therefore the least advanced techniques; his revival would be the least likely to work save for the accidental thawed and rotted patients) is looking farther and farther away. Source Bombing: Tossing a list of sources around and asking them to read them, does not strengthen the argument. Those five sources are not connected to any argument points, and are thus to be dismissed. Further they include Snopes.com, meaning the validity of the researchers there is accepted by pro. Snopes.com outright claims the suspended animation of Walt Disney is false [6]. Therefore by researchers pro is backing the validity of, Walt Disney was not frozen. Sources: [3] http://www.snopes.com... [4] http://web.mit.edu... [5] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [6] http://www.snopes.com...