I will subscribe to this blog, but I'm far from completely convinced. In particular, my impression has always been that, yes, it'd be to nice to have lots of cryonics-friendly doctors and surgeons involved, but the number that are willing, even at a premium, are few.
Putting aside the issue of how deep or superficial troubles in cryonics are, the proposed solution does not follow. Most voters, and politicians, are extremely hostile to cryonics and transhumanism at large. I suspect a serious appeal for regulation in the industry would most likely lead to a blanket ban, or at the very least that the resulting regulation would be not as desired, possibly even preventing others from entering the industry (but who knows for sure; my proposal: let's not find out).
I suspect a serious appeal for regulation in the industry would most likely lead to a blanket ban
In other fields, external regulation often comes in when internal regulation has failed.
Maxim's claims suggest that internal regulation has failed.
Suggestion: Cryonics advocates need to go through all Maxim's posts, work out the factual claims being made and investigate and report on them.
I recently found something that may be of concern to some of the readers here.
On her blog, Melody Maxim, former employee of Suspended Animation, provider of "standby services" for Cryonics Institute customers, describes several examples of gross incompetence in providing those services. Specifically, spending large amounts of money on designing and manufacturing novel perfusion equipment when cheaper, more effective devices that could be adapted to serve their purposes already existed, hiring laymen to perform difficult medical procedures who then botched them, and even finding themselves unable to get their equipment loaded onto a plane because it exceeded the weight limit.
An excerpt from one of her posts, "Why I Believe Cryonics Should Be Regulated":