and to an article, every one of them falls into one of two camps;
...
There are zero negative writings that I have found (and I've seen most, if not all) that stand up to a specifically detailed inspection.
I find part of that true and part false. The true part: "... that I have found...". The false part: "zero negative writings .. that stand up"

Although I will agree with you that most of the articles are very short and non-comprehensive, and many are written by journalists who are short on knowledge.

But then, you don't really need every warning column to go into great detail, when a simple "Do not play 3-card monte with a street artist." will do.

IULs are complex financial instruments. Funny thing is, they put the warning information right out there in plain view, but almost nobody recognises it. "Indexed universal life uses the S&P 500 index. (excluding dividends) as the benchmark for crediting their cash value." All it takes is for a quick look to see the effect over a long term.

Over the last 25 years, the return without-dividends was HALF the return with-dividends. Actually, worse than that. $100 grows to $436, for a profit of $336. $100 grows to $813 is a profit of $713.
In addition to the fees & caps -- which in themselves cover all the company's expenses -- they keep 53% of the profit and give the customer the remaining 47%. That's a hell of a racket. No wonder they can provide a "guarantee".