It's a political hack, it's making the point that it is easier to synthesise pseudoephedrine by buying crystal meth (the reason pseudoephedrine is so heavily restricted) than it is to go out and buy pseudoephedrine. It's an effort to change the law. That's the 'hack'. Chemistry enthusiasts will have to judge if it has been successful on its claims about the method outlined or, rather, if the hack is in fact exploiting our expectations that journals generally say intelligent and correct stuff, so the claims made in this journal article are correct. If we are either deceived by it being correct and cheap chemistry, or if we believe the claims within the article, the hack works (it's intent being to change absurd legal controls surrounding pseudoephidrine, not necessarily to show how to synthesise pseudoephidrine). It's necessary for the hack to work, to change our beliefs. If it does this with the truth, all the nicer.<p>This is a classic - even if the claims in the paper are bullshit. :-)