The author paints a one-sided picture by omitting the points of view of individuals who have benefited from the public-interest activities of the organization.

Elgin's article refuses to acknowledge the possibility that charities like the Global Healthy Living Foundation can have tangible positive impacts for patients. Instead of a balanced analysis of the relationship between drug manufacturers and non-profits, the article consists of unsubstantiated claims.

This article reads like a hit piece but its greatest offense is providing zero links to evidence to back up claims and responses from the charity made within the article. Many quotes said they were from other articles but no link to them. Its possible this information is true but the presentation of the information in this article is lacking credibility.

This article mistakenly assumes that the charity’s financial support from drug makers means it sought profits over the patients for which it advocates. The author relies too heavily on speculation and overlooks the benefits for patients that the charity has provided—without this insight, the argument falls flat.

The sources quoted, language used, and general tilt of this entire article are completely one-sided. The author does not make a single mention of the patients who do actually benefit from the organization, nor does he make any effort to offer any potential alternative explanations for the facts he outlines in the article. This is an opinion piece, not a news article.

This is a completely one-sided article that fails to include the perspective of patients who depend on advocacy work from this organization and others like it.

The author failed to provide an objective accounting of facts on both sides of a complex issue. In reality, many not-for-profit organizations accept industry funding and use it to satisfy otherwise unmet public needs.