pubmed is like a library. I agree with you that people might take something available via pubmed as somehow endorsed by the NIH. People also seem to no longer be able to differentiate between editorials, columns, guest opinion pieces, and articles in newspapers. I'm not sure what to do about that.
The article does clearly label the authors and the publication. pubmed, while fortunately available to the general public (it wasn't when I was in school), it is not necessarily intended for general audiences, as it were. From the about page https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/:
> "PubMed is a free resource supporting the search and retrieval of biomedical and life sciences literature with the aim of improving health–both globally and personally."
> "The PubMed database contains more than 34 million citations and abstracts of biomedical literature. It does not include full text journal articles; however, links to the full text are often present when available from other sources, such as the publisher's website or PubMed Central (PMC)."
> "Citations in PubMed primarily stem from the biomedicine and health fields, and related disciplines such as life sciences, behavioral sciences, chemical sciences, and bioengineering."
At some point you have to have enough context that you bring yourself. Reasonable people can disagree at how much context should be required.
