I'm not saying anything about why they engaged in this observed behavior other than "<i>good</i>" and "<i>bad</i>", the meat of the point is that they have vastly different standards for what they consider to be evidence worth citing in their reports.<p>The real key is how they treat unfavorable serious research, not what they pick and chose from un-peer reviewed anecdotal sources.  And how they're willing to use the latter, but made a big deal about how the research of their critics wasn't peer reviewed or in a blessed journal ... when they were conspiring to arrange just that outcome.<p>I think it's clear where the real selection bias is.<p>Look, the essence of science (that doesn't first start with experimental data) is that you put forward a theory, marshal evidence in its favor and answer all the criticism and evidence not in its favor.  If you hide, obfuscate or destroy your evidence and refuse to answer your critics <i>you aren't doing science</i>.