I find the statements about paracetamol (lack of analgesic function, hepatotoxicity) to be unremarkable and don’t find the claims in the article extraordinary.
In what way do you think it shows bias?
Can you summarize the point you're trying to make?
> Elizabeth M. Whelan (/ˈhwiːlən/; December 4, 1943 – September 11, 2014) was an American epidemiologist best known for promoting science that was favorable to industry and for challenging government regulations of consumer products, food, and pharmaceuticals industries that arose from what she said was "junk science." In 1978, she founded the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) to provide a formal foundation for her work.
What "industry" is this article being friendly to? The author of the article has written several other articles arguing that acetaminophen is nearly useless and dangerous, so this is a follow-up arguing that an acetaminophen analog engineered to not have the hepatic toxicity of acetaminophen is indeed safe, but no more useful.
I’ve never heard of this woman before, but you can clearly see by the statements in the Wikipedia page that are made without citing sources, and the overall tone of the article, what Wikipedia thinks about her.
Very little media is without bias.
Or look at the right column and apply Godwin's Second Law.