Because, to Gizmodo, bureaucrats losing some power over our lives would be bad.

Somehow.
The bill of indictment against this dangerous madman, who they find "pretty freaking terrifying"?

he has advocated for the FDA to give up on vetting the efficacy of new drugs before they come to market. O'Neill, in other words, would like the FDA to stop performing one of its primary functions and let all of us act as lab mice. Such a move might allow drug makers to rake in tons of cash on untested medical treatments that might not ever work.

"We should reform [the] FDA so there is approving drugs after their sponsors have demonstrated safety—and let people start using them, at their own risk," O'Neill said in a 2014 speech at the conference Rejuvenation Biotechnology. "Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized."

Those "insane" ideas that relate to the FDA may seem familiar to readers of Reason as they have been defended at length and intelligently here by our science correspondent Ronald Bailey, at most detail in this 2012 article.

In it Bailey presents some facts and analysis Gizmodo might not be aware of, or maybe not care about. (Gizmodo does not make the slightest attempt to actually explain why O'Neill's ideas are allegedly insane or bad for America.)
Short version of Gizmodo: "This man wants a government agency to lose power!  And has these strange ideas!  It's HORRIBLE!"