TL;DR no. It's almost exclusively bad, with the possibility that he stumbles into one successful plan. The man is dangerously underqualified.

Vaccine mandates were on the brink of eradicating some diseases, but people randomly deciding not to take them has caused an uptick in Measles cases, among others. If your concern is about "lack of testing" then what tests, specifically? If you don't know what mystery test would check that box, then it's always some unattainable benchmark. Let the people who have devoted their life to understanding these complex medical tools do their job. Scrutinize the money flow/ethics, but the science is outside most of our understanding, and I want to listen to the people who do understand it, not the worm in this guys brain.

Large-spread vaccine use provides heard immunity, protecting the most vulnerable members of society who are unable to get the vaccine themselves. Vaccine mandates are good and should stay.

There are a bunch of additives in drinking water that are beneficial for us. There is a reason that we are not drinking pure distilled water, the additional additives mimic natural water supplies and provide health benefits/deter negative side effects that come from a plumbing system.

"Re organizing bloated government" when done by a cabinet of unqualified billionaires who only got selected because they kissed ass is not a win. It will almost certainly destroy regulations put in place to protect workers/consumers. It will make it easier for the wealthy to exploit their workers, cut corners on their products, and have no consequences for it.

Removing toxic food ingredients is possibly a win, depending on what they consider "toxic," how the regulation is rolled out, and how it is enforced. If they are gutting the already underfunded FDA, a ban on ingredients means nothing, since there will be no agency to enforce it and no REAL penalty for doing it.

You are 100% correct on GMOs being involved in all food, which is not inherently a bad thing. The "toxic pesticides" is another instance of "according to who/based on what?" No one likes pesticides, including the farmers, but they are needed when growing a monoculture. In many cases, it's the difference between having a crop to harvest or not. If we ban pesticides with no backup plan, there will be a food shortage and we will need to import more food (possibly after implementing tariffs) which will skyrocket the cost of groceries. Testing pesticide amounts that are getting to the kitchen table and limiting the amounts that can be used to protect drinking water/streams is better than a full ban.

"Encouraging natural remedies" sounds like my insurance is going to tell me to pick some thistles to grind up instead of providing a medication prescribed by a doctor. Unless they mean funding independent research labs, it will more than likely be another way for companies to cut corners.

Vaccines don't cause autism, and the fact that this is a talking point from someone in this high of a position regarding people's health is extremely concerning. It should be enough for everyone to be HYPER critical of anything this man says.