The sections on the science seem pretty good, although they seem to focus too much on some basic and only tangential things where I would personally focus a lot more on cryobiology and what existing species with nervous systems can survive freezing (eg. nematodes).

Section 7, Discussion, is just terrible, though.

If cryonics is to be proven to actually work sometime in the future, then the definition of “dead” for the patient’s changes, they cannot be considered as dead since they will be revived. Therefore these people should not get money from their life insurances and most of the people who could afford cryopreservation only by using this money will not be able to pay for it anymore.

This makes zero sense to me. This is either wrong, a risible misunderstanding of free markets, or ignoring the issue of actual harms and losses.

If popularity of cryonics practice in the society will further grow, in the future, this may turn cryonics into a way to escape ones difficulties in life by choosing to temporarily stop it by cryopreservation, as is portrayed in Cameron Crowes film “Vanilla sky”.

And this would be a bad thing, why? (Also, reasoning from fictional evidence.)

"The individual who freezes himself or herself to come back in the future makes the assumption he will be a contributor to that society and that they would want him."

He makes no such thing! This is a tissue of problems, from false choices to fallacy of composition/division.

Also, by signing the UAGA the patients’ bodies become property of the companies; however, in the future (if they are revived) the patients will not have any guarantee that the companies will not use their bodies for further scientific research.

Oy gevalt. You don't have any such guarantee right now.

Another interesting point concerning those freeze tolerant animals is their size; indeed, the largest animal able to tolerate freezing is much smaller than a human body. This leads us to think that maybe a whole human body is not meant to be frozen.

Meant by whom? Obviously we aren't adapted, that's what the whole cryopreservatives thing is about! An animal as big as a human, in the evolutionary context, doesn't need to tolerate freezing.

Section 7 also entirely ignores neuropreservation and uploading (which go hand in hand, of course); page 48 is their master list, and most of the points don't apply to neuropreservation (despite their earlier including prices for it) or uploading, or are not particularly relevant (we don't need 100% thaw success rate).