This gish gallop is a well known technique of disinformation designed to give the air of authenticity.

All of those graphs look truthy, and it would take someone a couple of hours to go through all of them (especially because the submitted article doesn't bother to link to many of the sources) and discover the truth.

Look at some of the sources - the Herald Dispatch?

And look at the dishonest way it's rpesenting some of the data. There's a graph titled "Drugs involved in US Overdose Deaths, 1999 to 2017" and the article says this graph is trying to tell us that pills prescribed by doctors are the real problem and that the graph is hiding fentanyl. But look at the source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...

That graph has this text (missed out by the article)

"Drugs Involved in U.S. Overdose Deaths* - Among the more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths estimated in 2017*, the sharpest increase occurred among deaths related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (synthetic opioids) with nearly 30,000 overdose deaths. Source: CDC WONDER "

That's not hiding the fentanyl deaths.

Information and 'data' can be found to support nearly anything aslong as one lacks the integrity and honesty of due diligence. If there is a history of manipulating information, you now have to completely check and verify all resources. Doing this takes a good deal of knowledge in that field to properly work with, and those that do know what they're doing aren't going to be heard.

Given that I know the resource manipulates information, and that I am not privey to the information presented, but that there's plenty of resources that don't manipulate information that are contrary to this article, yes, I'm going to believe those until there's good reason not to.

Following the first link "The Opioid Epidemic In 6 Charts Designed To Deceive You" I reach an article from 2017 that in its second paragraph states:

> ...despite the fact that the "evidence" contained in the recommendations had been carefully scrutinized[sic] and found unsupportable by FDA scientists.

where "found unsupportable by FDA scientists" is a link to a document from 2013 that reads in part

> FDA has carefully reviewed PROP's Petition and the numerous comments submitted to the public dockets by government entities, medical societies, healthcare providers, patients, and other members of the public. For the reasons described in detail in this response, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part.

Curious how "found unsupportable" turned out to be "granted in part" in the source, no?

Yes. And even if it was sensible article with a solid purpose (it is not), that does not change the basic reputation of ACSH.