Moreover, most physicists (those who don't have particular expertise in information theory) are not particularly qualified to evaluate the subject except, of course, as intelligent laymen.

I never seen a pro cryonics argument that actually relied on information theory.

Even cryonics proponents would generally agree that you won't leave enough information if you boil a head in a cooking pot for 2 hours then freeze it. A valid pro cryonics argument must concern specifically the chemical damage (and loss of information stored in the chemical states), and distinguish between cryonics and hypothetical "boiling then cryonics". edit: that is to say, before information theory enters consideration, you have to deal with chemistry and physics enough as to not be making a fully generic argument that is equally applicable to the hypothetical "boiling then cryonics".

All such 'expert' testimony that is dragged up here over and over has included claiming that cryonics cannot work because it is not possible to repair preserved neurons in place.

And when further asked about actual information content, they tell that they do not think information is preserved either.

Since this is not remotely how cryonics works

That's how it is generally advertised, so this is what they are going to opinion on before they are actually informed of your specific variety of cryonics belief.

Since this is not remotely how cryonics works whatever dubious claims to authority that they may have had are screened off.

Yeah, except you're the one who were trying to argue by authority in the first place.