I realize that throwing the word "straw man" around is popular on the Internet these days to refute someone's argument when one cannot come up with an actual valid argument with some substance but c'mon guys.... Where's the strawman... You have to give Aragon his due. He took all of the claims that have been made FOR the primal/paleo diet and refuted them with real world research including commonly held paleo beliefs such as decreasing consumption of omega 6, toxicity of sugar, gastrointestinal distress from lectins/phytates and allergies to gluten... These are all the reasons commonly cited for paleo and Aragon has put up a very good argument about why these widely held beliefs may be false.
All that being said, the standard American diet has so much crap in it, that of course a paleo diet is a large improvement... And overall paleo is very healthy. I don't think Aragon is disputing the fact that the paleo diet is healthy or that it works. I think he is simply refuting the idea that certain foods (grains, legumes, sugar...etc) are necessarily harmful. Not sure what to make of this. I guess at the end of the day everyone has to do what works for them.