> It's not the source's responsibility to be 100% unbiased. 100% no bias isn't possible. However, are you suggesting that that they shouldn't even try to mitig

> It's not the source's responsibility to be 100% unbiased. 100% no bias isn't possible. However, are you suggesting that that they shouldn't even try to mitigate their biases? Not every reader is as informed as authors who have taken time to research a topic. Society commonly defers to experts. If it becomes common and accepted for experts to allow or even embrace their biases unabashedly, then there is no reason to defer to experts any more because we will never know if we're being subject to an endless stream of lies of omission. > If you can't elaborate on your judgement, perhaps it's you who have blinders on? That's totally possible. However I know for my own sake that I have certainly considered many of the assumptions and predictions the OP presented. That doesn't help you any, but it doesn't hurt you either because I haven't provided any of my own analysis (with my own biases) in the other direction either. I merely provided you with some new tools to better evaluate the predictions made by the OP. If you choose not to use those tools, that's your prerogative.