Hillstrom proceeds from the assumption that realizing no-self and impermanence represent pathologic/psychotic states: in other words, her underlying assumption for her ill-colored representation of our meditative experiences is that the realizations or wrong. Or to put it simply, Hillstrom believes that there is a self-soul and she believes there is a continuity/permanence to phenomena.
Therefore, anyone who perceives the world differently than this must have a psychological twist which is giving them bad ideas.
When you realize that her dialectic is based on such an assumption, the need to de-bunk it goes away. Because it is not merely our meditative experiences, but also our intellectual and mundane experiences, which show us that there is no self, and which show us the truth of impermanence. The Buddha several times in the suttas asked people to point to anything that was permanent, or anything that could constitute self. And, in truth, they could not. Likewise, Hillstrom presents (seemingly) no evidence to back up her axioms of selfhood and permanence.
Therefore her views on Vipassana are awry.
"It is easier to shout 'STOP!' than to do it." -Treebeard