The author of the Gplus screed should spend some time looking at Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Twitter history. He might then understand the context of the article Entine wrote. But then, both that piece and the Propagandists article do little more than make guilt by association attacks.
There's also Etine's "If you can't attack the science, attack the scientist". Which a) has been pulled from his website but b) exists on the Internet Archive and c) points to an article at The American, motto, "The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute" (yet another Libertarian / Free Market Fundamentalism disinformation mill), and which goes into gory detail projecting the whole mechanism of personal and reputationa attacks, on the other party.
Ironic as those attacks were polished and perfected by the Libertarian / Free Market Fundamentalism crowd, as well documented by Robert Proctor, Naomi Oreskes, and others.
The substance of that particular article: Entine's defence of the now largely deprecated chemical bysphenol A, a/k/a BPA, an endocrine disruptor.
"based on other evidence -- largely from animal studies -- the FDA expressed "some concern" about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate glands in fetuses, infants, and young children."
Entine's own stock in trade is largely reputation attacks, smears, and playing loose, if at all, with the facts.
Again: first time I came across him, my first response was neutral. But that (and the Slate) article are so content-free and slippery that my hackles went up. That paid off.
Even my biotech friends are coming around to that viewpoint (having been initially critical).
