I’m not sure I see what the big deal is. It seems she made an observation, formed a hypothesis, and made a prediction. Her prediction failed to bear out, so she modified her hypothesis based on another observation, and is making tentative predictions based on that. I suppose the (mildly) interesting thing will be to see what she does if this set of predictions fails. Then, again, I’m not exactly sure what she was predicting. Was she predicting that something would happen in the June 11-14 timeframe and/or July 6? If that’s the case, she’s likely to be right. Was she predicting an earthquake in that timeframe? Again, she’s likely to be right. Was she predicting a devastating, headline-grabbing earthquake? In that case, probably not. Anyway, I’m not sure I see the correlation between earthquakes and the orbit of an unobserved planet and/or the magnetic field of a companion star. Even assuming we accept the existence of such things, and the idea that they cause earthquakes, why would they cause earthquakes on certain days and not on others? If she has an actual hypothesis, I think she could do a much better job of stating what it is. Of course, the clearer the hypothesis, the easier it is to falsify.