I spent months reviewing his math very carefully and complained to him about many rather strange steps. I finally decided that the math was correct, but his interpretation was not.
My contention is that his results follow from his assumptions of symmetries. His response is summed up in the following quote from one of his posts:
"I show that the data must display a specific set of symmetries (because there is no information outside the data being examined)."
His demonstration is to assert that your subconsciousness is manipulating the data of your senses and thereby casting it into every possible symmetry, the two most important being shift symmetry and scale symmetry. In case you are not familiar, the first says you can add any constant to the data without changing it, and the second says that you can multiply the data by any number without changing it.
I do not know how he came to realize that your subconscious can do that, or if the subconscious actually does it.
But nonetheless, his resulting universal equation which can be reduced to both Schroedingers equation and special relativity, a feat first performed by Dirac who inferred the existence of the positron from his results, mathematically comes directly from the symmetries displayed by the data. This is a fantastic result that goes way beyond Noether's theorems about symmetries and conservation laws.
If Stafford would just publish his math starting with assumptions of those symmetries, he would get the recognition he deserves. But instead he makes unsubstantiated claims about the subconsciousness that make his work unpublishable.
I sent him my survey paper on non-local consciousness that includes the subconsciousness, but he has chosen to ignore it. If I have not sent it to you, (and you want it) just ask at firstname.lastname@example.org, and I will attach it to the reply.