It's easy to discount that when we have the benefit of 400 years of his work being verifiably true. Without that, the fact that he was an alchemist WOULD put a

It's easy to discount that when we have the benefit of 400 years of his work being verifiably true. Without that, the fact that he was an alchemist WOULD put a dent in his credibility, and you would be RIGHT in doubting the quality of his work. That doesn't mean you're excused from checking if it's correct, but having doubts about it's quality is perfectly reasonable. Having beliefs that are out there doesn't prove that you're a crackpot, but it does slide the probability in that direction. That said, a quick skim of the article doesn't reveal any glaring errors - it seems to be a good analysis.