I'll give you an example of the hook worm:
"
Hookworm: not a pre-Columbian pathogen.Fuller K.
SourceDepartment of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence 66045, USA.
AbstractIt has been asserted that evidence of pre-Columbian hookworm has been found in the Americas, specifically in Peru, Brazil, and Tennessee. However, based on an analysis of the life cycle and morphology of hookworm, the paleopathologic indications for the presence of hookworm infestation in the Americas prior to 1492 are suspect. It is concluded that the material found in the Peruvian mummy is probably pinworms, that the Brazilian and Tennessee materials are probably not hookworm, and, therefore, that hookworm was one of many pathogens brought to the Americas after contact in 1492."
Hookworm: not a pre-Columbian pathogen. [Med Anthropol. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI
---
Your source sets it, giving the impression that it is irrefutable evidence but when I did a quick search the topic is still hotly debated in the literature. So it made me wonder right off the bat, whether the paper was a balanced representation of the studies, or more a position piece cherry picking through the research to support something consistent with their religious views.
They also make other kinds of assumptions such as: "Can these findings be said to establish conclusively that early human voyagers crossed the ocean to the Americas?" There's another alternative pretty well published of sea people making relatively fast transits along the coast by kayak or large dug out canoes that doesn't require any ocean crossing.
That evidence is cemented in my mind as factual right now.
No one can expects us to be experts, but there's enough information to be a bit more skeptical about research and do a bit of independent examination of bias or credibility of the source.
Perhaps we can just take a sampling of a few of these claims? Like one that they say started in the America and traveled back to Asia.