Frank Krygowski writes:
So what you're saying is "_All_ the data is bad. I
just know it is. You just have to believe me."

=v= What I actually said is that *part* of the data is
subject to bias: namely, the at-fault numbers.

Sorry. I think unquestioning faith in a self-proclaimed
prophet is kind of dangerous.

=v= Now you're really off the rails. I named specific and
well-known forms of bias (observer bias and survivor bias).
I did not invent these insights, I'm just applying them. If
you have any substantial, non-_ad_hominem_ reason why these
biases should simply be ignored, by all means present them.
_Jym_