"Gilbert Ling does not believe in ATP as an energy source for cells"
That is not a minor charge. That is the equivalent of saying "DNA is not the source of our genes". It is going against about 70 years of biochemistry, most of which has been proven beyond much reasonable rebuttal any longer. Again, you can say that, but you better have MOUNTAINS of data and more than one guy that will vouch for you. Otherwise you are just grandstanding.
"Dr. Lazarus doesn't believe in cells."....ok, well who gives a rats behind. But hey, I got my name out there out of the obscurity it was under before! I am a snowflake researcher, a rebel with the REAL science all by myself! Put me on the internet!
The fact that someone realized, by accident, that one could image the water collecting around proteins via the different ions they emit does NOT repudiate decades of biochem.....in the same breadth, alleles were not disproved by Watson and Crick imaging the DNA molecule. These are separate theories, and the validity of one does not make fallacy of something unrelated.
I have a simple rule in ALL of science and medicine.
Anytime I see "Person _______'s theory on thermodynamics/retinal surgery/biochem", in any other form but an actual study with falsifiable claims, I am going to presume they are a fruitcake grandstander until proven otherwise. ONE guy does not disprove the work of many thousands because some people on the internet wrote about it, and there is no shortage of angst-ridden researchers trying to make names for themselves by throwing out deliberately contrarian, if unverified, claims about just about anything.