The crack one? Yes, I've read it, it's bogus, it assumes too much and knows to little. It's like asking a a comic book writer to make a detailed account of bio-chemical virology. The point being, it's not scientific at all. Which means it attempts to be somthing which it isn't. Half the reasons are directly wrong, the rest assumes to much to be taken seriously. If you want, I can go through every one of the points made in it and tell you what exactly is wrong with it from a virologists, biologist and logical point of view. Although, I should think you would be able to see most of it yourself.
As far as I remember he decided to not have anything to do with it at all.