Delusional as ever. Anyone with different preferences than his either has an inferior palate or is part of some conspiracy/fraud/self-promotion.
When evidence of great physiological differences was presented, he didn't process the text, the concept. He saw it as a ranking. Since "super-taster" is obviously the best rank, where he ranks, he adopted the term for himself. It doesn't matter that he isn't one. He clearly does not believe different preferences are equally valid. Regardless of the experience of the taster. Many many times he's personally attacked people who disagreed with one of his ratings.
I don't agree with people who claim his palate has waned, though. Wines have changed. He's still spot-on with intense, traditionally ripe Cabs and Syrahs, for example. He's never gotten less intense wines, so his Burg preferences never lined up with most Burg-o-philes. He'll never get Trousseau or many other interesting and unique grapes that make wonderfully complex, yet low key wines. That's fine.
One thing he doesn't get is his template that worked for traditionally ripe wines like Bdx, doesn't hold for many of the bigger, riper wines that have come about. Some the winemakers mimic what he likes and exploit the weaknesses of his palate. There are definitely masters of making big, ripe, ageworthy wines. But he can't tell the difference. A few times members of his forum - who were subscribers, valued posters, people who shared his preferences and bought on his recommendation - posted that a bottle didn't age well at all, though it was just into his recommended drinking window. No introspection on his part. He lashed out with attacks. They either have a bad palate or it was a bad bottle. When other loyal forumites popped and shared bottles from their collections, one after another after another posting that the wines had fallen apart, well obviously it was some sort of conspiracy.