There are a lot of generally relevant points about when/how to trust experts, not specific to cryonics.
I think it does a really good job at explaining how to identify the relevant experts in cryonics to help you assess the value of current and potential cryonics.
It has a list of interesting famous wrong predictions 'experts' made.
Here's the table of content:
Whose expertise is relevant to evaluating cryonics?
Note that our blog is called "The Biostasis Standard." Yes, the cryonics term is not ideal. Biostasis subsumes cryonics and I prefer it, but far more people are familiar with "cryonics", so it will take a long time to transition terms, if it ever happens.
One research project Biostasis Technologies is behind is vitrifixation -- cryopreservation combined with chemical fixation. It has some advantages in certain circumstances. Ideally, we want a range of cryo and non-cryo preservation approaches, each of which may be the best for particular situations -- such as ischemic time.
I really liked the recent essay Who are the Experts on Cryonics? by Max More.
Here's why I think you might like this article:
Here's the table of content: