I wasn't referring to the bullet cluster specifically, but this obsession with the bullet cluster is typical of the confirmation bias in this field: hyperfocus on what confirms bias and ignore the countervailing evidence. The past 30+ years have seen many "corrections" to get LCDM to fit observations it did not predict [1]. Clusters in general pose challenges to both MOND and LCDM for different reasons [2,3], but LCDM's typically get ignored and MOND's treated as a fatal blow. As I said, neither theory is fully satisfactory, but it's clear that research on these questions is fairly one-sided.
I personally hope that the solution to the handful or two of things that the LCDM model does not (currently) explain will be more interesting than a trivial tweak (which seems to have no physical motivation) to the gravity equation that MOND is.
The research was simply done again with better accuracy.