So far Mitten's only response to my post below has been to attack the concept of religiously inspired dietary laws.
Not a word of retraction for the outright falsehoods she peddled, nor the factual mistakes she made, nor even any attempt to defend her position.
Instead all she does is comment how much she likes bacon and dogs and isn't afraid of them.
It's an oft-used and readily recognisable tactic: avoid discussing facts and focus on one specific irrelevancy in order to deflect comment from the refutation of their basic thesis.