The appearance of another questionable "dietary supplement" story in the news is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east. But this one is different. 

This is front page news all over the place, including a piece by Anahad O'Connor of The New York Times. O'Connor focuses on the FDA's failure to take action against companies which sold supplements containing an untested chemical stimulant called BMPEA, aka beta-methylphenethylamine, even though the agency knew about it two years ago.

It is rare enough to have one accepted scientific paradigm turned on its head, but last week we had two. Pay attention. This may never happen again.

A study that was just published in the oft cited “Journal of Unintentional Environmentalism and Bassoon Maintenance” got things rolling. It provided proof that proponents of homeopathy have been right all along, despite longstanding, dogmatic and arrogant protestations by second rate pseudoscientific hacks such as myself. More on this later.

Let’s give a big shoutout to Gawker . They really stuck it to the Times by pointing out that their columnist Nick Bilton, who writes about technology, business, culture, and style (and should probably stick to...

I never know what I'm going to find on the editorial pages of the New York Times. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't. But, they usually, at the very least, make sense. 

That streak ended on March 2nd, when the Times printed an editorial titled "Painkillers Abuses and Ignorance." The paper really dropped the ball on this one. After reading it, I was left wondering whose ignorance was being referred to, because in 433 words, they did nothing short of a superlative job of mixing together misleading statements, bad conclusions, and naive suggestions.