Schizoid, that means they've revived three people using this, not that there's a one-in-three success rate.
You're right, he was one OF three, not one IN three. That's even better for scientific resurrection.
Exactly how much depends how many they tried it on to get those three successes, of course!
Three people revived after that much time is an excellent step forward (maybe - see below), but before I get too excited I'd want to know how many it was tried on that DIDN'T come back.
- - - - -
Is it a good thing? I don't know. The planet is at 7 billion people right now, with possibly another 3 billion in the next 50 years. In 1900 it was around 1.6 billion. People still want to have babies, and people are living longer.
This machine means that a lot of people who would have died, will now live on, sometimes for decades. This guy was 39. He could be here for at least as long again. Do we have the resources to keep growing, keep breeding, and keep living longer?
For him, for his family, this machine is fantastic. And on an individual basis, I would be hard pushed to say to anyone "don't use it". But can we keep on keeping on?
- - - - -
Another point. Why are the religions not up in arms about this machine? They should be condemning it as hard as they condemn abortion, or suicide, or euthenasia....as GM crops, as DNA experimentation, as cloning. Its all going against what god wants, after all? Why the double standards just because this particular piece of "playing god" happens to be extending earthly life?