bogart: "It is a false dilemma"
Ali Sina asserted the consequent, but I do not see where he presented a false dilemma. However in regards to the former, you have done the same. That said: No, it is not easy to counter Ali’s hadiths evidence, any more than easy to counter non-acceptance of hadiths as evidence,
By presenting Islamic tradition as authentic and accurate this sets the stage for a forced conclusion. If the groundwork is not authentic or accurate then the whole argument collapses. Thus it is a false dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Dismiss the absolutist claims and the argument is worthless.
In fairness to Ali, he did not claim a medical research paper accepted by AJM or BJM, it was merely a peer to peer essay. His target audience was Muslim readers, (and perhaps those exploring Islam), who are likely to accept hadiths as authentic. If authentic, then Ali has presented a plausible theory on Mohammed and Quran, notwithstanding absence of medical qualification.
Many Muslims do reject literalism, accuracy and authenticity of ahadith, thus the false dilemma collapse. Besides Muslims can simply accepted all the supporting sources to confirm their views that he was the messenger of God and this was just the side-effect. Hence why the only conclusions Ali can produce as mentally ill or he was in fact a prophet of God. If I reject this premises regarding hadith the argument is finished. The ahadith could be false completely, distorted after time, missing information, etc.
Edit: I am aware Ali was not the first to advance the epilepsy theory
People do this all the time with many historical figures. They made a show about it on History Channel the start claiming people like Caesar or Alexander were murderous megalomaniacs. The show makes the same mistake as Ali Sina. Both are taking history sources as 100% fact. No historian dealing with this era would make such a claim without looking like a fool or a hack.
For example many laymen think Alexander's conquests according to the sources happened as these sources claim. However for many of the areas conquered in Central Asia, north of Persia proper, there is zero evidence of the Greeks in the area during his life time. There are also cities claimed as being conquered that did not exists until the Successor State period, evidence against the sources. There is only one piece of evidence even supporting his actions in India which are coins. That is all there is, no weapons, cultural icons, remains, just coins. These coins do not demonstrate the battles happened as per the source claim. Only that Alexander was there, nothing more. Did Alexander consider himself a God, or son of a God, because later sources claim so or because later cultures turned him into one? Are these sources talking about Alexander himself or merely the current ideas about Alexander the population believes in. It would be like reference Christian sources to conclude Christianity is true, fraud or delusions, just as C.S Lewis did.
Also consider Hadith "science" is no more than giving authority to a game of Chinese whispers yet modern historians know that oral tradition becomes distorted within the 3rd generation removed from the event. Distorted being a modification from the original. This add up over time. We should trust X source because the same book which mentions X sources says it is reliable, purely circular reasoning.