Looking for errors in the paper is exactly what peer review and retraction is for. Even if it mimics the form of an academic paper it doesn’t progress the debate if all it is using is already discredited or unsupported. As other commentators have pointed out the cites that he uses are way out of date and this isn’t advancing the field.

It serves no ones to repetitively rebut the same mistakes over and over again. While at the same time such papers lend false credibility to damaging ideas.