Don't know if @wisty or @ktizo is right here, but she's been publishing since 1993 is not a logical argument.

Ok, she's been consistently publishing in academia since 1993 and was asked back to her job at Stanford after leaving to become Marie Curie Chair of Mathematics Education. If her research didn't cover a lot more bases than was suggested, then I don't think she would have held either of those academic positions.

Resort to authority. One of her adversaries is a retired Stanford prof. I'm not taking one side or the other here.