1. The article is published on mercola.com, a known quack site. (Bad.)
2. The article's author is someone else. (Good.)
3. He's discussing nutrition from a religious point of view. In the introduction he says the purpose is to show that proponents of raw veganism as biblical nutrition are heretics, but in the article itself he goes further than that, attacking veganism and vegetarianism by citing studies in nutrition/medical science. But the article is a messy mix of Bible verses and cherry-picked references to scientific articles. (Bad.)
4. The author doesn't appear to have any scientific credentials.