Credibility for cryonics in the medical community is more likely to emerge from the application of vitrification to donor organ preservation, I think, which is where inroads are being made by groups like 21st Century Medicine.

But credibility with the public follows its own strange laws, seemingly immune to logic and the voice of the research community in some areas. So who knows, you might see some sort of transference of credibility via magical thinking, in that both involve cold.

No. Too different to be applicable. This doesn't involve going below the freezing point of water, which is a Big Red Line.

(I'm not saying that makes anything possible or impossible, just saying there's a large enough difference to make the two unrelated.)

None whatsoever.

edit: The stumbling block for cryonics the massive trauma to cells at a molecular level from freezing. If I have to bet, that never gets solved and cryonics is a pipe dream. So, I didn't mean to be so blithe, but this offers no new information that's relevant to the viability of cryonics.

edit: I'm aware of vitrification. Vitrify and revive a human, then. It's a safe bet that it's not a perfect process at the scale of a whole human body.