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?