The story presents factual claims that align well with the established narrative about Johnson & Johnson and its historical events. For instance, the claim about Johnson & Johnson's response to the 1982 Tylenol tampering incident being a model in business schools is accurate and well-documented. The mention of the company's litigation over talc in baby powder, which resulted in significant settlements, is also supported by historical legal records. However, the story could benefit from more precise data, such as specific figures or dates, to further bolster its accuracy. The portrayal of the book's content as a critical examination of both Johnson & Johnson and the FDA is consistent with the book's themes and assertions. Overall, the article maintains a high level of factual accuracy, though it could enhance credibility by incorporating more direct citations from the book or related sources.

The article primarily focuses on the critical aspects of Johnson & Johnson's history and practices, as explored in Gardiner Harris's book. While it provides a thorough examination of the company's controversies, it lacks a balanced perspective that includes positive contributions or counterarguments from Johnson & Johnson or its defenders. The critique of the FDA and media is presented without much counterbalance, which could lead to a perception of bias. Including viewpoints from Johnson & Johnson, the FDA, or independent experts could have provided a more comprehensive and balanced analysis.

The article is well-written and clearly conveys the main points of Gardiner Harris's book. The language is straightforward, and the structure logically presents the book's themes and the author's criticisms. The article effectively communicates the complex issues surrounding Johnson & Johnson and the FDA in an accessible manner. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of specific controversies to enhance reader understanding.

The primary source of the article is Gardiner Harris's book, "No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson," which is described as comprehensively reported and researched. Harris is a veteran reporter, lending credibility to the book's findings. However, the article does not mention additional sources or corroborating evidence outside of the book. While the book itself is a strong source, the inclusion of independent expert opinions or data from regulatory bodies could enhance the article's source quality by providing a broader range of perspectives and evidence.

The article provides a clear overview of the book's themes and the author's investigative approach, but it lacks transparency in terms of methodology and source attribution. It does not disclose how the book's claims were verified or whether any attempts were made to obtain responses from Johnson & Johnson or the FDA. Greater transparency regarding the basis for the book's claims and any potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's transparency score.