Okay then, if you've read her work - which by that I assume you mean her book on this topic, and perhaps some of her articles as well - which aspects of it do you consider pseudo-scientific, and why?
I would have happily discussed the pseudo-science aspect with someone who did not demonstrate that they are biased. You did demonstrate that you are biased: you did say that her work is thoroughly scientifically constructed. People who IDEOLOGICALLY AGREE WITH HER admit that it is not the case (that the references were thin, that when several hypotheses were possible, she jumps on the one she likes and rejects all the others, that a lot of elements look anecdotical). How is that possible? If her work is indeed thoroughly constructed, why people who have all interest in saying so say exactly the opposite. There is only one possible conclusion: their claim that there are holes in her work is just the result of the reality.
Ex falso quodlibet. You have demonstrated that you have a distorted view on the reality. So, no wonder you will think that pseudo-scientific elements are in fact totally scientific even when they are not. (and I'm sure you honestly believe you are right, this is how bias work: you honestly believe her work is very well constructed, despite the fact that it is not, as demonstrated by the fact that people who have no reason to do so admit it is the case)
And I know that now you will shout and cry that you have important things to say and that I am the bad guy for not listening to you. But don't worry, if what you have to say is indeed the reality, then there will be more people who will say it without at the same time demonstrating that they are biased (and if the majority of people who say the same thing also demonstrate that they are prone to see through pink glasses people who say what they like to hear, then it is probably that this thing is not real in the first place).