> he advocates for nicotine use to prevent Alzheimer's

Could you source this?

Do you have a specific timestamp of him advocating for the use of nicotine? From the description and timestamp chapters this seems like a fairly reasonable episode on the effects of nicotine in the brain, which, given the topic of the podcast seems in his lane. It even dedicates a decent portion of runtime to quitting smoking and vaping, even though that isn't really on topic.

This alternate link to the same site seems more attuned to what you just asked. (Not going to listen to it all myself...life's too short, then you do or don't get forgetful!)

https://ai.hubermanlab.com/s/dqcKio7m

He's wrong about X because he says Y is a logical fallacy

That's not what the GP said. They said Huberman's incorrect statements on something they understood made them more skeptical regarding his other statements, not that these other statements were definitely wrong because the first statements were wrong. It's about judging Huberman's reliability as a source of information, not deciding whether he's correct or not, ie whether it makes sense to take Huberman at his word or whether one should doublecheck the things that he says.

Sure, but if he has a track record of being wrong about X then being skeptical of future claims seems reasonable.

There's no nicotine in cannabis, so I don't see how they are at all related

If someone has a history of misrepresenting research on drug X and drug Y, it's reasonable to be skeptical of their claims about drug Z