I think that to present a "balanced" argument when there is none - is a sort of perversion.  This false objectivity produces controversy when there is none: so you have in the US evolution vs "creationism" as if they were both scientific when they are not.  To try to produce abstract and false positive articles regarding PMCs as if they are rationally equivalent to the negative articles is definitely POV.  The situation is similar to an imaginary news reporter asking peoples opinion regarding a corpse: "So you sir say the corpse is dead but what about the other side of this question?"  Ridiculous.