Well, yes. My point was simply that the title misrepresents the article, because it is ambiguous. "The illusion of evidence based medicine" can be interpreted a

Well, yes. My point was simply that the title misrepresents the article, because it is ambiguous. "The illusion of evidence based medicine" can be interpreted as a statement of how the aim of evidence based medicine is illusory. The short introductory paragraph, "Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests [etc]" furthers this idea, having a somewhat definite tone, as if this corruption were fatal to any proper scientific inquiry. The rest of the article dissipates this confusion rather quickly. Stepping back a little, how would one react to a title such as "The illusion of medicine", making the same general argument?