Yes, it was a joke that blu elder was playing. By the way....one reason alcohol is a bad idea for aircraft fuels is the affinity for water that it has. While it may sound like a good idea to absorb water out of the fuel....the real problem is when you have alcohol in your fuel and go fly. When you climb up away from Mother Earth the temperature falls. The fuel cools. The water precipitates back out. The fuel strainer may become overloaded with the stuff. The engine sputters.....
Notice also that the FAA Type Certificate for Cessnas specifically prohibits the use of fuels with alcohol in them. (I know, I know. The FAA also allows generally, the addition in the field of isopropyl to aircraft fuels as an anti-freeze....but that Advisory Circular is generic.....the Type Certificate prohibition is overriding because it is specific.)
Alcohol also damages/deteriorates some fuel system components. It's a bad idea for any fuel system, IMHO.
Two-Cycle oils for "valve lubrication" is a potential problem, IMHO. First, it makes for increased carbon fouling which creates hot-spots/glowing embers which can cause pre-ignition. The incomplete combustion by-products caused by the burning of the added 2-stroke oil also adds to dirt in the engine's oil system. It also may contain other additives not approved for aircraft engines such as metallic compounds that can be deposited in the combustion chamber, also causing pre-ignition. (The reason av-oils have different additive packages than automotive oils is specifically to avoid such metallic compounds. An example is that Av-oil additives are not "detergent" like auto-oils...they are "dispersant".) Why don't 2-stroke engines suffer from pre-ignition then? Because 2-stroke engines run at higher cycles (hence the term 2-stoke) and their combustion chambers are scavenged differently than 4-stroke engines. In fact, some 2-strokes actually have glow-plug ignition because they benefit from the continuous-temp ignition source. An extra little bit glowing here and there has no ill effect on them. (Remember your model airplane engines? And certain 2-stroke diesels?)
The normal clearances in your aircraft engine already allow crankcase oils to reach the areas needful of lubrication. (Air cooled engines are considerably "looser" than liquid cooled engines such as your car. In our C145/O300 engines, the valve-stem to valve-guide clearance is specifically intended to allow oil from the rocker-box to lubricate the valve.) If your valves/guides are properly sized, no additional additives are necessary or adviseable.
Some operators swear by MMO for various reasons. As a fuel additive it is analagous (IMHO) to adding dyed jet fuel to your gas. If jet fuel is bad in avgas systems, then MMO has to be just as hazardous. But there they are, the many owners who use the stuff and tell stories about how great it works for them. I personally believe that MMO probably softens lead deposits somewhat. (It's going to be funny as H--- when some day someone reveals that the "mystery" in MMO....is that it has TCP in it.)
(I just thought/made that one up.)
There's quite a few folks who tell convincing stories about how it solved their engine's stuck valve habits. All I can say is.... if it's so good, then I don't know why MMO hasn't gotten it approved. They must know something that we don't. And the engine mfr's have fought off a lot of lawsuits centered on failed/stuck valves. You'd think TCM would have packaged the stuff as a special TCM-valve additive if it had any merit. Think of all the extra money they could reap if they had an additive like Lycoming sells for their tappet-galling problem. Alcor-TCP also gets rid of lead problems and it is approved so that's what I use.
Other's use MMO in their oil sumps, I suppose either to satisfy an imagined need for "thinner oil" for lubrication of equally imagined delicate/fine mechanisms, or to keep the engine insides clean, since it's also a solvent. I think that's an especially bad idea. If thinner oil was good or necessary then simply using a lighter viscosity oil would solve that need. But I suspect if the same owners thought about it, they'd disapprove of adding something that actually thinned out their oil. Yet that's exactly what it does.
As for cleaning out the engine, I believe that deposits already there in places that aren't in close/sliding contact with other internal moving engine parts serve a good purpose in situ. They insulate against corrosion just like a coat of varnish or paint would. Washing that stuff off and circulating it around in close-tolerance areas seems injurious to me. I've seen inside some engines that were pretty-well coated with junk on walls, sumps, etc., and they were running just fine. I can't imagine loosening that stuff up and pushing it thru the moving parts of an engine without it damaging something. Aviation Consumer magazine had MMO tested at a lab that reported it was kerosene/naptha/distillate with red dye and perfume.
I believe clean, pure, purpose-designed/refined fuels and oils are best for our engines. I also believe additives are usually attractive to us only because we have active imaginations and our well-intentioned buddies do too.
Finally, a quote from one of the best articles ever written about "snake oils" aka: additives.
"The major oil companies are some of the richest, most powerful and aggressive corporations in the world. They own multi-million dollar research facilities manned by some of the best chemical engineers money can hire. It is probably safe to say that any one of them has the capabilities and resources at hand in marketing, distribution, advertising, research and product development equal to 20 times that of any of the independent additive companies. It therefore stands to reason that if any of these additive products were actually capable of improving the capabilities of engine lubricants, the major oil companies would have been able to determine that and to find some way to cash in on it.
Yet of all the oil additives we found, none carried the name or endorsement of any of the major oil producers.
In addition, all of the major vehicle and engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year trying to increase the longevity of their products, and millions more paying off warranty claims when their products fail. Again, it only stands to reason that if they thought any of these additives would increase the life or improve the performance of their engines, they would be actively using and selling them - or at least endorsing their use.
Instead, many of them advise against the use of these additives and, in some cases, threaten to void their warranty coverage if such things are found to be used in their products."
Want to read the entire, informative, well-researched article on additives?
http://www.thegsresources.com/garage/gs_additive.htm
)
(At the quantities suggested by the can's instructions, it's a pretty small amount of product that is actually being dispensed into the gas tanks.....so I personaly expect in such quantities it has little detrimental effect on avgas....and about the same amount of benefit. What is referred to in some professional circles as the "placebo" effect. 
in certified aircraft; since they have a huge budget and can hire the best chemists does it follow that George secretly uses the stuff ?