This article is one-sided and inflammatory. The author used refusals to comment as a replacement for reporting the viewpoints opposing his own conclusion. Additionally, he employed conclusory terms, such as "widely criticized," without having laid the factual foundation for such a representation. Finally, his ambiguous description of his sources, e.g., "according to internal emails obtained through more than a dozen public record requests," calls into question from whom and why he received the information he reported.

It is almost as interesting to see the negative reviews of this stories here on Credder as it is to read about the obvious and well financed campaign against affordable medications.

Mr. Elgin is back to his usual tricks in this one. To preface this review, it should be made clear that this article is simply the most recent of many examples of an unsettling trend in Mr. Elgin's work. The most bizarre aspect of this piece is that it is written with the barely contained zeal of somebody who believes they have crafted a Pulitzer-worthy exposé, when in reality, it doesn't actually expose...much of anything. Here are some of Mr. Elgin's “big reveals” in this piece: he begins by dramatically reporting that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (an industry group) is the primary financial backer of a non-profit called the Partnership for Safe Medicines (PSM). In other words, major players in the pharmaceutical industry have taken an interest in keeping prescription medicines safe...hardly the nefarious connection that Mr. Elgin frames it to be (and, incidentally, a connection that was previously reported on over 2 years before this article was published). He then implies that the timing of a grant that PSM made to the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) warrants suspicion, in part because the grant came at a time when NSA was low on money. You know what organizations like NSA tend to do when they are low on funds? Ask for grants... Mr. Elgin also mentions another grant given by PSM, this one to the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators (NADDI). He highlights the as support for...whatever claim it is that he's trying to make. He says that after receiving payment from PSM, NADDI ran a series of ads that supported PSM's position on drug importation. Or, put another way, two organizations collaborated to develop an ad campaign that addressed a mutual priority. Ah yes, a true conspiracy. Again and again, Mr. Elgin displays a unique talent, not for making mountains out of molehills, but rather for conjuring them out of thin air. With little to no opposing commentary from the involved parties (which is unsurprising, given Mr. Elgin’s apparent aversion to thoughts and ideas that don’t mirror his own), he implicates or blithely tosses out baseless allegation after baseless allegation, repeatedly postulating that actions which are completely legal, even normal, are actually the sinister signature of a master puppeteer. Perhaps one day, Mr. Elgin will finally break the story that he continually attempts to manufacture and on that day, I will be the first in line to congratulate him. But today is not that day and this is not that story. Maybe next time.

This article is, per much of the author's previous work, speculative and one-sided. The author disregards any opposing opinions and fails to include any sources that disagree with him, using "declined to comment" as a convenient replacement. The article is untrustworthy and reads as a hit piece rather than true investigative reporting.