This is inconsistent, because vitamin C, being a very powerful anti-oxidant, if it is active, will sharply lower the redox, and adding permanganate, a powerful oxidizer, will destroy the vitamin C. Another example: on the one hand condemns the use of chelating agents as rendering trace elements useless through sequestration, but on the other endorses the use of chelated iron for maximum availability.
Does the author make universal recommendations or condemnations without making distinctions? For example, that all organics in the aquarium are bad, without consideration to the benefits of some amino acids, chelating agents, vitamins C, B₁₂, other vitamins, all of which are organic. Does the author use faulty reasoning?

For example, the detrimental waste removed by protein skimming is organic, vitamin supplement products are organic, therefore, vitamin supplements should be avoided.
Does the author make claims and assumptions that are no more than wishful thinking? For example, that zeolites or other ion exchangers can remove nitrate from seawater. Or, that a particular carbon is phosphate-free, when there is no such thing. Or, that vitamins are compatible with oxidizers like ozone or permanganate. Or, any other desirable selling point that requires the suspension of fundamental physical or chemical principles.
It has become increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction in the rising tide of pseudo-technical jargon, inflated claims, unverified assertions, and inconsequential observations. It is important for the hobbyist to be as informed as he can.