Not at all... He states merely that if someone has the option to have a control and chooses not to, you should be concerned. Specifically he hits on the fact that some fields can't have a control (sometimes just due to ethical reasons).
I think the distinction is that we /often/ choose not to have a control, for a multitude of reasons, so as a cause for concern it's highly nonspecific. Much like the critique of small samples - there are underpowered 5000-patient multi center trials, and well-powered 30-patient trials.
As I said, I think this is a nice introduction but can lead one to discount, well, anything other than large randomized placebo-controlled trials.
