Tone of the article was certainly skewed in Harkonen's favor, so I stopped mid-second page and turned to HN comments. It's great that the journalist found the

Tone of the article was certainly skewed in Harkonen's favor, so I stopped mid-second page and turned to HN comments. It's great that the journalist found the debunking study and mentioned it. But does the order matter? He goes on and on about how "a sizable proportion of [scientists] might be in jail today". Most readers would drop half way through, as I did. What will they learn? Oh, there was evidence that drug can be lifesaving but technicality killed the white knight. The problems with after-the-fact analyses are well known. I reckon there should be a strict mathematical proof why those are wrong. We just got yet another example of that. How else can you keep charlatans out if not by being rough on those who break the rules? Especially when breaking the rules possibly has lethal consequences for less sophisticated yet desperate consumers. I'm not saying Harkonen is a charlatan, but he certainly jumped the gun. For whatever reason, but he did.