But it does prove that it's nonsense, and not worth figuring out if she's right or wrong.
Even assuming her being "batshit crazy" is a fact, it would not prove her work is nonsense, nor what its "worth" is. That's fundamentally why ad-hominem is a fallacious argument and why it's not enough to discredit the character of someone to also discredit the substance of their arguments or positions.
I'll bet you argue with jokes from stand-up comics, too, and yell at the television when you're watching reruns of cop shows from the 70s.
Grown ups have better things to do than give a damn about moonbats.
So to summarize your position, the answer is "No, I don't have anything substantial that I can or want to present against her work, I think she's crazy and that's enough to automatically dismiss anything she did without even looking". It kinda sounds like a very dumb position and that's because it is.
If you want to talk about what "grown ups" do, get rid of ad-hominen arguments and learn to argue properly first. I have read her Complaint and I know that most of it is BS and the reason it's BS has nothing to do with her character. Of her research I have read nothing and I cannot comment, but similarly whether it's good work or not has nothing to do with her character.