Is this a scam that exploits desperate people?

Let’s be honest. If someone hears about cryonics for the first time and thinks, “This sounds like a scam,” I understand the reaction.

A company talks about death, asks people to arrange substantial funding and describes a future that nobody can demonstrate today. These are exactly the conditions where suspicion is useful.

I would be more worried if nobody asked difficult questions.

But “uncertain” and “dishonest” are not the same word. Cryonics has a deeply uncertain objective. The work performed today is real, physical and open to inspection.

That difference is the whole argument.

You are not buying guaranteed revival

Tomorrow.bio does not sell a guaranteed return to life. We cannot promise that future medicine will be able to repair the causes of death, reverse cryopreservation damage and safely revive a patient.

Nobody can make that promise.

Our public informed consent says that human revival is not possible today. It also says that the required technology may never exist and that we cannot provide a meaningful probability of success.

This is not hidden in a legal document that people discover after paying. It is the first fact someone needs to understand about the service.

So what does a member actually arrange?

They arrange readiness while alive, a response when the time comes, cryopreservation after legal death, transport and long-term care in Switzerland. These are present-day responsibilities with people, equipment, records and contracts behind them.

The distinction may sound obvious. It is not.

A scam needs the hoped-for future to distract you from the absence of anything real today. A serious cryonics organization has to do the opposite. It has to separate the speculative objective from every obligation it can fulfil now.

Did the team respond? How quickly did cooling begin? Was circulation supported? Was cryoprotectant delivered? Were pressure, temperature and concentration recorded? Was cooldown controlled? Where is the patient stored?

Those questions do not prove revival. They show whether the organization performed the work it promised to perform.

The future cannot be audited yet. The procedure, the facility and the money can.

This is why our informed-consent process matters so much. A member should understand both statements at once: the intended outcome is unproven, and preservation quality today still matters enormously.

Look at what exists today

Stories are cheap. Cryopreservation infrastructure is not.

Tomorrow.bio maintains trained response teams, specialist equipment and biostasis ambulances. We perform field cryoprotection and transport patients to the European Biostasis Foundation facility in Rafz.

EBF is not a drawing of a future building. The facility has been operational since 2022 and already holds human patients and pets in cryogenic storage.

Its systems include cryogenic storage, automatic liquid-nitrogen refilling, medical and research space, and low-temperature CT imaging. The facility work is explained in our article about long-term storage at EBF.

We also publish contracts, funding policies, protocols and case reports. The case reports document what happened in individual procedures, including the difficult cases where circumstances were far from ideal.

That part is important. Selective evidence is easy to polish. A real operation has delays, deviations and lessons, and it should show them.

Our quality work includes cooling records, perfusion data, refractive-index measurements and CT scans. The limits and uses of those measurements are covered in how we assess cryopreservation quality.

Again, none of this proves that revival will work.

It proves something more immediate: there is an operating organization doing the difficult, expensive and inspectable part of the job that exists today.

Follow the patient and the money

One company should not control every promise, every asset and every patient indefinitely. We designed Tomorrow.bio around that problem from the beginning.

Tomorrow Biostasis GmbH is the German operating company. It manages membership, readiness and the cryopreservation procedure.

The Patient Care Foundation in Switzerland acts as legal guardian of the patient’s body and allocated capital. It is responsible for protecting the patient’s long-term interests.

EBF is a separate Swiss non-profit foundation. It owns and operates the Rafz storage facility and conducts biostasis research.

Our organization structure explains the responsibilities of all three entities. The reason for separating them is simple: patient care should not depend on the commercial future of one operating company.

EBF also publishes annual activity reports and externally audited accounts. Its 2024 audit report names the independent auditor, the Swiss federal foundation regulator, its assets, liabilities, income and expenses.

That is not a decorative transparency page. Those are numbers someone can question.

The funding minimums and sample member documents are public too. You can inspect the contract before signing, see where responsibilities move between entities and ask what happens if circumstances change.

We explain the failure scenario directly in what happens if Tomorrow.bio goes bankrupt? Building an organization that can survive its founders and operating company is also the subject of building organizations meant to last.

No structure removes every long-term risk. Claiming that it does would recreate the exact problem this article is addressing.

But there is a huge difference between pretending risk is absent and building legal, financial and operational layers to reduce it.

Desperation changes our responsibility

Some people first contact us while healthy and arrange cryopreservation many years before they expect to need it. Others encounter the subject because death has suddenly become close and real.

The same standard of honesty has to survive both situations.

Fear can make any promise sound more attractive. That gives us more responsibility to be precise, not less.

We can move quickly when a situation demands it. We cannot turn urgency into certainty, invent a success probability or tell a family that future revival is guaranteed.

We recently spoke with members about how they reached their decision. We are not publishing their private stories, but one pattern is worth sharing.

Some people felt confident quickly after seeing the facility, reading public reviews or speaking directly with the team. Others signed up and still wanted more research updates, more financial detail and more evidence about long-term stability.

Honestly, I think that is healthy.

Signing a contract should not require someone to switch off the part of their mind that asks uncomfortable questions. It should give those questions somewhere concrete to go.

Public member reviews can tell you how people experienced our communication and support. They cannot validate cryobiology. A facility visit can show that EBF exists and operates. It cannot prove future revival.

A scientific paper can support a technical claim. It cannot tell you whether a team will answer the emergency phone.

Different evidence answers different questions. Trust becomes meaningful when the evidence matches the claim.

If someone decides the uncertainty is too large, the cost is not justified or the idea is simply not for them, that is a legitimate decision. Disagreement with cryonics is not ignorance.

But the scam question has a direct answer.

Tomorrow.bio is an operating human cryopreservation organization. We state the central uncertainty plainly, publish the documents behind the arrangement, report our cases and use separate Swiss foundations for patient care and storage.

We do not ask you to buy certainty about the future. We ask you to inspect what we have built today and decide whether preserving a chance is worth it to you.

That is the standard we want to be judged by.

Further reading

• Choosing the right cryonics provider
• Reviews from members
• What happens if Tomorrow.bio goes bankrupt?