The author fails to provide credible reasoning in this article. He provides no conclusive evidence with respect to the alleged corruption of the patient advocacy group mentioned, and he carelessly assumes the ill intent of pharmaceutical companies. Disappointing read.

The author's agenda is extremely evident in this piece, and leaves no room for critical analysis. The pharmaceutical industry is complex, and the lack of evidence in Elgin's article is frustrating.

The author oversimplifies complex matters and relies on erroneous assumptions that all public-interest organizations that accept industry funding are conflicted and ineffective.

The author's own views about the pharmaceutical industry are abundantly clear, and he makes no attempt to provide a nuanced or balanced view. His assumption that these patient groups are inherently corrupt is both inaccurate and unsubstantiated.

Again, the author makes no effort whatsoever to explore the possibility that pharmaceutical companies and the organizations they support are not inherently evil. The entire premise is based on the assumption that the pharmaceutical industry is completely comprised of bad actors whose only objective are higher profits. That's a lazy, inaccurate, and frankly dangerous take.

This article is premised on the biased notion that the U.S. drug industry is inherently malevolent and that organizations it funds are consequently corrupt.

This is the second article by this author that speculates, generalizes, and opines about non-profits being shells for pharma-industry's interests. I believe there is merit in Ben's work to begin investigations into said companies, but Ben neither provides names for those non-profits, nor has he provided any links for the reader to investigate further themselves. He generalizes the interests of the non-profits and the industry as a whole.