Furthermore, those ~280 largely specialize in frogs, oocytes, etc.... but not in organ cryopreservation.

Reference? If I understand correctly, most of cryobiological research, including these rabbit kidney cryopreservation results, is published in the official journal of the Society for Cryobiology. Fahy used to be (still is?) a member of the Society and also the treasurer.

For whatever it's worth, focus only on organ cryopreservationists and you'll find the percentage of cryonics supporters drastically increase.

Reference?

I know you skimmed this article, but I encourage you to read it again. There you'll find your answer to Greg Fahy.

"Darwin" cites Fahy on an incident of a paper that was apparently rejected, according to Fahy because of prejudice, though others say it was rejected because it was bad science, he cites him again on uncontroversial arguments for vitrification.

I can't find anything implying that Fahy endorses cryonics as currently practiced. There is clearly a great difference between saying that cryopreservation of whole humans or human brains is an interesting area of research and suggesting people to make arrangments today to be cryopreserved with methods of unproven effectiveness.

Brian Wowk is an organ cryopreservationist who supports cryonics.

I've found this video of Wowk speaking at an Alcor conference. I find it quite balanced.

He mentions all the problematic issues with brain freezing and vitrification. He claims that the vitrification injury may be reversible in principle and in practice with future technology, but he admits that the argument is somewhat "hand-wavy" and won't convince critics.

I do disagree with the conclusion that, even if cryonics has a low probablity of success, we should do it. It is the sort of "Pascal's mugging" argument that is not instrumentally rational.