Well, Stricker actually has a finding of research misconduct against him ; he fudged data to get an NEJM paper that was retracted by his three co-authors when they found out what he did: .  As a consequence, was barred by the ORI from receiving or applying for federal grants for three years in the 1990s.  So he's previously gotten into serious trouble for throwing out data that doesn't fit his preferred hypothesis.
In recent years, his publications seem to be almost exclusively low-impact papers, opinion bits, and letters related to Morgellons and the related dubious diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease.  I suppose it's possible that he might be "leading his field", but if so it's taking an awfully long time for anyone to start following.  It's looking much more like he's just wandering in the wilderness.
And the advent of the "open-peer-review" journals (where the journal publicly posts the identities and sometimes the comments of peer reviewers) opens a window on at least some mild shenanigans regarding reviewer selection in some of his recent papers.  This 2013 F1000 paper has a publisher's note about an undisclosed conflict of interest, where one of the reviewers was co-authoring another manuscript with the paper's authors while reviewing the F1000 paper.  And one of the reviewers of the current paper (BMC Dermatology, 2015) was Robert Bransfield , who is actually acknowledged in the paper (!) () for his contributions.  This sort of thing has a couple of likely explanations—Stricker (et al.) are deliberately pointing journal editors at very friendly peer reviewers (and these mostly-crappy, low-impact journals don't do much due diligence), potential conflicts of interest be damned; or these papers are so far out on the fringe that it's very difficult for journal editors to find anyone who is willing to waste time on reviewing manuscripts on these topics, so they're relaxed about their reviewer standards; or both. (talk)