How very retro. Loving that early-2000s pink-blue melange of pre-CSS Dreamweavery junk code and the Photoshoppy gradient tool.
Anyway, on a more serious note, I had never heard of her before and just skimmed her site and the interwebs for 5 mins to collect some thoughts. Essentially that article and her website rants strike me as all rhyme and no reason. She has no qualifications, no academic background of any relevance and every polemic takes the tone of a conspiracy theorist. If there is any grain of truth in anything she says, it is obscured by the morass of irrelevant opinion, anecdote and hearsay, so her position as a whole is just plain bullshit.
But life is simply too short to sit down and methodically take apart her poorly-informed, pseudo-scientific polemics. Maybe someone else has the energy or the inclination to do so but whilst I'm shameless enough to avoid work to post this comment, I do still have enough dignity about me not to want to get drawn in any further.
For a starting point on how to take her, you could do worse than check this thread from the James Randi site (the JREF is the seat of all rational positions against quackery and bogus science):http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31435
Still, you've got to adore the ironic contradiction between her domain name:
are not offered for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease or disorder, nor have any statements herein been evaluated by any government agencies. Said content is not intended as medical advice. Please consult your health care professional with regard to matters pertaining to your health.