Several comments:
(1) I am skeptical of the researcher's conclusions. That does not make them wrong. But I would suggest that others be cautious.
(2) This is not completely new. I remember reading an article with similar claims, perhaps different evidence, more than 40 years ago. If I remember correctly, it was in the Saturday Evening Post.
(3) The researcher appears to have a strong research record. I am basing this only on the web page linked in the OP. If I were a medical researcher, I might want to investigate the accuracy of that information. As it happens, I don't have any expertise in the area, so at present I am willing to tentatively accept the researcher's own claim as to his research record.
What is wrong here, is that the researcher has decided to go straight to the press without going through the normal peer review process. This is not unlike what Pons and Fleischman did a few years ago.
I can understand why he may have decided to bypass peer review. He has undoubtely been receiving a very skeptical reception by his peers. This was surely very frustrating.
The peer review system is conservative and therefore slow. This is usually desirable. In the case of medical research, the conservatism is particularly important, for we are dealing with what might affect the lives of many people.