I see a lot of misinformation and misuse of statistics there:
To argue against eating vegetables, he talks about vegetarians...ignoring the fact that most vegetarian problems are due to a lack of other areas rather than an abundance of vegetables.
For Alzhiemer's her shows the correlation-causation fallacy. Aluminum does show up in Alzhiemer's patients, but its unlikely to be the cause of the disease (more likely an effect).
On melanoma he points ot the fact that lifeguards have a lower rate than office workers. I spewed coffee on this on. Office workers rarely get out in the sun and tend to be paler, so they are more likely to be affected by exposure. The lifeguards have had exposure, develop darker skin, and most are bright enough to know to use sunscreen when they'll be out on the beach for hours at a time. In other words, the office worker is less likely to realize what strength and how often to apply sunscreen, and is more susceptible anyway because he's paler. The study doesn't necessarily support his argument.
On prostate cancer, he says the PSA make syou more likely to die of cancer. Well duh!! Those in a high-risk category are more likely to have a PSA, you %^&%^$# idiot!!! Of course the percentages are higher!!! Again, not enough info to support his theory. He goes on to say the rate of missed cancers hasn't gone up....if they're missed how the ^%&% would we know?
On heart-disease he talks about the dangers of a very low-fat diet. Yes, a very low-fat diet is bad. However, that doesn't mean a high-fat diet is good. Apply the same argument to salt: Experts say a low-salt diet is bad for you. If you don't get any salt at all, you can die very quickly. This does NOT mean you should increase your intake of salt to high levels. This is an excellent example of the Either-Or fallacy.
Low Cholesterol makes a similar mistake...low cholesterol may increase risk of a particualr type of stroke, but high cholesterol increases risks of other types. You have to find the area where the risks balance. In other words, at 200+ your risk for this type may drop by, say, 80%. But your risk of other types goes up much more than that. He shows only one aspect, instead of looking at the whole situation.
He ignores a lot of information on hydrogen peroxide, including the fact that the free radicals (those extra oxygen atoms he touts) are a major cause of cell damage related to aging. IN fact, he talks about anti-oxidents earlier, then seems to contradict himself here talking about free oxygen being a good thing.
The ones I haven't mentioned are either poorly backed (i.e.-although studies may support his view others do not), controversial, unproven, or hes spouting things I'm not familiar enough with to argue against.
