Not sure of your logic.
What I'm saying is not that I haven't read her work and made my own opinion on it. As a matter of fact, I have done so and I consider several elements of her reasoning as being pseudo-science (yeah, I know, you will say "then you did not understand", what a surprise).
But of course, if I say "I have read her and consider she does pseudo-science", you can answer "then you are just politically biased: you say it is pseudo-science because you ideologically don't like the truth she is telling" and we are not moving at all.
So, to avoid this impasse, my argument is rather: "you say 1) she never does pseudo-science, 2) her work is very rigorous, BUT even a bunch of people who are ideologically agreeing with her are saying that number 2 is incorrect".
My point is that, based on the fact that you demonstrably twist the reality on point number 2, I cannot really trust you, and you appear as being the one biased. If you are the one biased, of course you will say that she never does pseudo-science. If you are biased, I cannot trust you to present the robustness of her work realistically.
It does not mean it is the proof she is doing pseudo-science. The reason I think she is doing pseudo-science is because I have read her work.
Finally, I would like to point out that the "every critics can only be liars, you have to read by yourself" is itself is a big red flag.
In a normal, pro-intellectual world, an author will never say "you have read what my colleagues said about me, but this is worth nothing, you absolutely need to read yourself directly my work, every discussion about my work is somehow wrong" (this idea is obviously very stupid when one realises that the people that the author says don't know what they are talking about are people who read themselves directly the author's work in the first place). In a normal, pro-intellectual world, the best analysis of someone work is a mix of the author's work AND what other people think about it. Authors will be welcoming analysis of their work, because their work is of good quality, so these analyses have no reason to misrepresent the work.
As I was saying in my first comment: the majority of the people are "neutral", they don't have any reason to go in a crazy fantasy that she is pseudo-scientific just for fun. The fact that she has a bad reputation is not due to fringe extremists, it is due to the fact that the majority of neutral people sees how she behaves and what she says. So far, people who are judging that the robustness of her work is really good always end up, what a strange coincidence, also agreeing with her on her opinion. If her work is robust, people who disagree with her will recognize that her work is robust. But here, it is the opposite, even some of people who agree with her opinion admit that her work is not that robust.