No it is not. If you want to consider informal logical fallacies, it is closest to "poisoning the well", as I am tarnishing his name in an effort to make you not believe is claims. I am not saying he is wrong because he is a quack, I am saying he is a quack, and here is an article going into why he is wrong.

> but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data

The problem is Seyfried doesn't have data. His science is bad and extrapolating from marginal results. Some parts of these ideas might pan out, but all I've seen indicates he's made this his hobby horse is riding it.

Speaking of fallacies, dismissing an argument because you found a single fallacy within it without addressing the main substance of the argument is known as the fallacy fallacy.

There is a lot chew on in that comment and that article beyond "a bit of a quack"

The fallacy fallacy is when you dismiss a conclusion based on a faulty argument. Him not addressing the argument isn't that. Him dismissing the conclusion of the argument is that.

Speaking of the fallacy fallacy, calling out someone for calling out someone for a fallacy using the fallacy fallacy is the fallacy fallacy fallacy — as an initial fallacious fumble may indeed foretell further fallacious findings in a given figure.

I know it's a joke. But he just named the phenomenon, not discredited the whole argument.

Edit: so you commited a faux meta fallacy

Oh nice to learn that. I knew a less formal version in my country which we call "the fat virgin fallacy" which is when you denounce a fallacy in a somewhat informal less strict conversation. Made popular because libertarian argie president liked to tweet and denounce fallacies like so.

If it quacks like a quack it’s fine to call it one.