I actually agree with you, which is why one of the links I presented was a rebuttal of a similar argument used about Ellen White. I think these doctors who try to diagnose someone decades or centuries after their deaths are just silly conjecture at best and shouldn't be given much credence.
I am particularly on my guard when "scientists" abandon the canons of science and start forcing data in the face of supernatural phenomena, rather than doing the honest and scientifically correct thing, in certain circumstances, of declaring something "not scientifically explicable". They can add "Not scientifically explicable at this time and with the information currently available to science", if they don't want to seem to be lending credence to a reported supernatural phenomenon. However, for scientists, who know that the moniker "scientist" has about the same authoritative power as "oracle" did in the ancient world, to force data and give bad explanations which don't fit the facts, in order to "disprove" the supernatural...but not actually disproving it...this is snake oil selling.
I have seen and talked with Angels, and I am not epileptic. That's a fact. Now, a scientist might suggest tests to determine if I were crazy, or had a brain tumor, something like that, but the generic "People who see angels are epileptics" explanation sounds like science, but it is in fact an unscientific assertion of opinion. It's soothsaying.