You don't seem to be all that up to date on present practice and theory in cryonics. Take some time to read up on the publications, such as by groups like 21st Century Medicine:
Evidence-Based Cryonics has a lot of as-unbiased-as-you're-going-to-get stuff on the perfusion and ischemia issues associated with vitrification of tissue, as well as explorations of other commonly voiced objections. Just wade through the archives:
Also, since we seem to be arguing from authority here, you might look at this, noting that a number of the signatories are quite well known biologists:
I don't doubt that cryonics is a valid science, but it is not a valid business model right now. The things I did in my lab were valid science, but I would be thrown in jail for ever giving those reagents to actual patients.
Like I said, the current state of "businses cryonics" is basically astrology and wishful thinking. I also don't doubt that in ten, twenty, fifty years, scientists will have figured out how to do it (much better).
But right now? I'm saying nope.
(Addendum: most of those publications listed at 21cm are about thin slices, which isn't exactly relevant. The even better ones are oocytes, which are practically tanks of the cellular world. Drosophila oocytes are so large you can see them with your naked eye and can withstand enormous punishment before dieing. Using them as case studies of vitrification is not really being honest.
This brings me back to my original point: the science is solid...at an academic level. Once you move past 50 micron tissue slices, it all goes to hell.)
http://www.21cmpublications.com/
Or for a simpler starting point, the FAQs for scientists at Alcor:
http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm
You might also look at ongoing results from the Brain Preservation Technology Prize:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/03/an-update-from-co...
Evidence-Based Cryonics has a lot of as-unbiased-as-you're-going-to-get stuff on the perfusion and ischemia issues associated with vitrification of tissue, as well as explorations of other commonly voiced objections. Just wade through the archives:
http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/
Also, since we seem to be arguing from authority here, you might look at this, noting that a number of the signatories are quite well known biologists:
http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-...