It is about using cryonics-oriented techniques to verify a claim of extreme interest to cryonicists, and of minimal interest to cryobiology in general (which does not care much about whole organisms or their neurological integrity, but about narrower more applied topics like gametes or organ transplants where neurons either don't exist or are largely irrelevant).

I suppose that I were a neurobiologist I would find the topic of the paper very interesting. I mean, it's about cryopreservation of plastic nervous structures!
If the paper was good science and it turned out that it had been unfairly rejected by major journals I would be quite disappointed. If it turned out that there was a systemic suppression of this kind of research I would be calling it a scandal.

So where is the evidence of all this wrong doing? Where are all these unfairly rejected papers?

The problems with peer review are well known. There are countless studies in Google Scholar demonstrating problems in the peer review process from gender bias to country bias to publication bias to novel findings etc etc, on top of all the ones in the Wikipedia link I gave you; your blind veneration of peer review is not based on the empirical reality. Further, the war of cryobiologists on cryonics is well known and well documented, and there is zero reason to believe that cryonics-related papers would be given a fair reception. You keep making ridiculous claims like pointing out problems with peer review is the sign of a crackpot or arguing that a professional society banning a topic will somehow have no effect on research and does not indicate any biases in reviewing research on the topic, demanding proof of impossible things, and then completely ignoring when I point to available supporting evidence. This is not a debate, this is you digging your head into the sand and going 'La la la reviewers are totally fair, there is no opposition to cryonics, peer review is the best thing since sliced bread, and you can't force me to believe otherwise!' Indeed, I can't.

I think you are strawmanning my position.

I'm not claiming that the peer review system is totally fair. I can even concede that it may be biased against cryonics, to the effect that a cryonics-related paper has to pass a higher bar to be accepted.

But your claim is much stronger than that. Your claim is that the peer-review system is so much biased that it has effectively managed to systematically keep scientifically sound cryonics-related research off all major journals.
This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
This is also a claim that it would be easy to verify if it was true: just produce the unfairly rejected papers with the reviewers comments. This is the type of claims for which absence of evidence is evidence of absence.