It's easy to "go through the trouble" of picking the matching third-party sources and rejecting non-matching third-party sources. If you are an association tryi

It's easy to "go through the trouble" of picking the matching third-party sources and rejecting non-matching third-party sources. If you are an association trying to present one viewpoint (as this is), that's pretty much your first job. The article here touts the word "random", which is essential to the science of the claim - but despite being claimed repeatedly, it remains totally unexamined. There is bias and there is bias - this article makes no attempt to clear any source of bias, and as such is about as biased as you can get.