The creator of MOND addressed that:
The problem then is that we want to have enough examples where MOND "works" that we don't think we'll run into another cluster anomaly. However, there aren't too many types of objects in the sky. So we either need very good numerical evidence for MOND in all other systems (unlikely) or a solution to the cluster anomaly which might not be too hard, unless MOND is actually wrong of course, and that's a risk you often face as a scientist.
It is important to stress the word "around". In Milgroms example the DM is still around the baryons, just far out at a different radius. This is the modification you can get, as long as gravity is still a central force in your theory. However in case of the bullet cluster the DM simply doesn't follow the center of the baryons. It is completely separated at a different place. I think he doesn't get this important point.
2) "As I said we do know that there is some (still) dark matter in clusters and that's what they found."
So Milgrom is admitting that even with MOND one needs some dark matter to explain the results. But with only dark matter we don't need to use MOND. So according to Occams razor the Dark Matter theory wins, because it explains more with less.
Dark energy, though, currently appears to be a "stuff we really don't understand" factor.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.10...
(the last author of that paper is rather well respected in that field)
The Bullet Cluster is especially significant, because it shows gravitational lensing by dark matter spatially separated from visible matter. No modification to gravity can explain that without giving up the idea that gravity is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_force .