I think he is fine, and indeed it is the contrast between what someone with a momentary interest and minimal effort brings up on him - even actual biographical details, but certainly real science - and what the serial author involved presents as the notable part of the man that is a cause for removing that article whereas a more interesting one which might in passing mention that he has done some work on Mercury and autism ("Assume Mercury causes autism."  "Oh dear, the autistics excrete less Mercury"  "Well, assume they can't excrete it..."  not ridiculous, but some of the take-up on it is, and that does not belong in WP).