It seems that you are trying to argue that there is some sort of conspiracy by cryobiologists to prevent cryonicists from publishing in high-impact journals.
If I understand correctly, the Society for Cryobiology officially bans its members from practicing or endorsing cyonics (defined as the cryopreservation of human corpses for the purpose of reanimation), but it has no position about preventing people associated with cryonics organization from publishing research.
If you want to claim that cryobiologists are covertly suppressing research by cryonicists by lobbying journal editors or abusing the peer review system, I would say that this is a very serious accusation of professional misconduct and you should not make it unless you can back it with evidence.
some sort of conspiracy by cryobiologists to prevent cryonicists from publishing...the Society for Cryobiology officially bans its members from practicing or endorsing cyonics
Yes. Some sort of conspiracy. I don't know why anyone would think that. What an odd thing to think.
it has no position about preventing people associated with cryonics organization from publishing research.
'Comrades, good news. You are free to research and publish anything you want about capitalist economics, as long as it's negative and does not endorse or practice it. Let 100 flowers bloom!'
I would say that this is a very serious accusation of professional misconduct and you should not make it unless you can back it with evidence.
Are you arguing that despite bitter hatred and an astonishing policy outright banning cryonics, this has zero influence on the notoriously politicized, inconsistent, random, risk-averse scientific publication process which has been amply documented to settle for lowest common denominators, punish ambitious work, express peer reviewers' personal prejudices in discriminating against minorities, conservatives, etc? You think that somehow cryonics papers will be an exception to all this, will get a free pass and be fairly and impartially evaluated by its sworn enemies?
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2014.1636
This is a paper published in 2014 by Natasha Vita-More and Daniel Barranco, both associated with the Alcor Research Center (ARC).
The abstract:
Can memory be retained after cryopreservation? Our research has attempted to answer this long-standing question by using the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a well-known model organism for biological research that has generated revolutionary findings but has not been tested for memory retention after cryopreservation. Our study’s goal was to test C. elegans’ memory recall after vitrification and reviving. Using a method of sensory imprinting in the young C. elegans we establish that learning acquired through olfactory cues shapes the animal’s behavior and the learning is retained at the adult stage after vitrification. Our research method included olfactory imprinting with the chemical benzaldehyde (C₆H₅CHO) for phase-sense olfactory imprinting at the L1 stage, the fast cooling SafeSpeed method for vitrification at the L2 stage, reviving, and a chemotaxis assay for testing memory retention of learning at the adult stage. Our results in testing memory retention after cryopreservation show that the mechanisms that regulate the odorant imprinting (a form of long-term memory) in C. elegans have not been modified by the process of vitrification or by slow freezing.