But nobody can be interested in random opinions, so the piece can only have value on the good points it proposes.

Given your knowledge of what you called «usual crowd», given the piece and your relative knowledge of reality, do you see in the article a bona fide analysis, or is it apparent to you that some points are ideological as opposed to factually and logically strong?

I saw the piece as mostly ideological -- not rabidly so, but not bringing any fresh new analysis to light, either. And saying pretty much the same as what these people say about any kind of regulation, be it in regard to emissions, medical devices, etc. And not surprisingly, getting paid to do so.