Given that the author of this article is "Schering-Plough Professor in Health Care Regulation and Enforcement", it should be obvious why disruption rhetoric may appear threatening to him.
Given that the author uses the cui bono argument quite extensively (see, for example, "unfortunately, the “disruptions” pursued by Silicon Valley giants ... often have little to do with challenging the biggest power centers in society. And why would they?"), I see no reason why the same logic can't be applied to his own words.
