Yes, but the criticisms of Scientology having merit doesn't mean that these criticisms have merit. And people thinking that airplanes were overly ambitious when they were just around the corner doesn't mean that a cure for death is just around the corner.
Both those things might be true, but I would need stronger evidence than has been presented thus far to convince me.
Take it from someone who went to medical school: you'd be hard-pressed to find people with an anti-aging/anti-death stance among a random sample of medical professionals.
It's a social experiment you can actually do yourself: find an MD or med researcher who's easy to talk to and ask them about the subject. Chances are, they mirror the exact position laid out by fizixer. You might argue this is because they reflect the opinion of our population at large, but - anecdote alert - in personal conversations I found that medical professionals are in fact more likely to assert that death is natural and/or can't be opposed on religious grounds.
Similarly, regarding life extension, the majority opinion seems to be that this is literally evil since it would flood the industrialized nations with elderly and sick people. Yes, that means they can't wrap their heads around what life extension actually stands for (which is the opposite of what they claim).
That said, hueving is absolutely correct: judge an argument by its merits, not by the credentials of the person putting it forth.
People can critique scientology without being members. The same can be done with medical research goals.