I suspect that these patches frequently do not fix the security bug. Basically, if you care about security, you should use software supported by the vender, or open-source team which produces the software.
I don't think he's spreading FUD. It's a lot of trust you're placing in a 3rd party who doesn't have the source code to patch your system. Independent reviews and A B testing would help sway a lot of people, IMO.
Source code isn't necessary. How do you think the security researchers find them vulnerabilities? They can fix them the same way too.
You can find vulnerabilities using a variety of techniques, but to properly patch them you do need access to the source code. These "updates" don't even modify the executables, so would have to be applied every time you turned on your P.C.
Wrong. Look at the other comment I made here about Ilfak Guilfanov.
They have the ability to sign files with Microsoft certs?