I’m also wary of accepting controversial opinions at face value, and fully support your skepticism here. She’s not my favorite messenger, either. I don’t think ad-hominem attacks are fair, though.

The article is full of references to evidence outlining her position. Do you have any critique of her arguments you can share?

Calling out why a doctor is a quack is not an ad hominem when questioning their qualifications as a medical reference.

Yes, but only if evidence is provided to justify calling the doctor a quack.