[joshes]

>I know a lot of you don’t understand why I can’t disclose all conflicts of interest. The answer is that if I did, not that many people would want to talk to me in the direct, honest way that I prefer. As a reader you must remain aware of the inherent bias in everything you read, and form your own opinions accordingly.

So at first he admits that he cannot disclose all conflicts of interest, then states that, as readers, his audience must remain aware of his inherent bias. How are we to remain aware of the nature of these biases if all conflicts are not disclosed? And, in turn, how are we to trust anything that he writes when it is known that he has a) biases and conflicts and that b) he will not disclose all of the?

I understand that everyone has biases and conflicts of interest, that they are impossible to avoid and that it is highly impractical to disclose each and every one. But it seems intriguing, to me, to caution us to "be aware" while also telling us that he will not give us the information require for full awareness.

[baddox]

He's promising to disclose all financial conflicts of interest, which I feel are the only ones that are vital to disclosing. The idea of disclosing all other conflicts isn't even well-defined. Presumably he'll only ever write about topics he finds interesting, for one reason or another. Sure, he might be friends with the founders of Company X, but if he's genuinely interested in the company he's writing about, does it really matter why he's interested (if it's not because he invested in them)?