And this proves something? Just looking at your excerpts of quotations I saw problems with the proffered line of reasoning. Your claims regarding his arguments seems to be "because I didn't find very many references to "army disease" it must not be a real thing."
This is what is known as a "non sequitur." The conclusions do not follow from the available evidence. That others did not come along to rebut him also does not prove anything either. (and I don't even know if that is actually true.)
What you are doing here is using leverage. You know that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to rebut some scholar somewhere, and all you have to do is toss out his name and a few quotes.
I don't think this game is worth the cost of playing to me.
Kind of like you did with your inappropriate and off topic Burke quote?