Sure: the fact that 99% of scientists agree on something does not necessarily mean that it's true. For instance, only 200 years ago 99% of scientists agreed on creationism, and 600 years ago they agreed on geocentrism.

However, if scientists have competing theories to choose from, normally the majority choice turns out to be correct. At least I don't know of any counter example. The heliocentric model, relativity theory, quantum theory, or the Big Bang model were new competing theories that became accepted by the scientific community even before most observations were made that confirmed them. Therefore, the bandwagon is not always a fallacy.

Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory. The only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults. But there are so many specific problems like the heat problem and the miracle requirement, and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.