Here is just one in 5 errors in her review of Antifragile:
"And some of his observations are just willfully perverse He suggests, for instance, that administering mammograms to “women over 40 on an annual basis does not lead to an increase in life expectancy,” because a doctor, seeing a tumor, “cannot avoid doing something harmful, like surgery followed by radiation, chemotherapy, or both — that is more harmful than the tumor.” [my emphasis].
The fact that mammograms get women in trouble is standard belief in the medical establishment —a fact that received ample coverage in the New York Times, her employer. (The latest NYT article is called "Ignoring the Science on Mammograms", November 28, 2012, a few weeks before her review).
I said, 5 errors showing she doesn't have a faintest clue about the subject matter she is reviewing. And I am not even getting into her discussion of fragility (which she missed completely). Pseudo-experts usually try to hide their lack of expertise, remaining vague, so it may be that there is something wrong with her at a deeper level... Is she crazy enough to engage a technical subject without asking for specialist advice, or even engaging in something as basic as Google search?