I guess you'd need to actually be competent enough in your knowledge of how studies like these are done in order to appreciate why your claims about it are ridiculous. But written to complete an idea the researchers had? Well, that might be called testing an hypothesis, lol. There's nothing that's wrong or biased about that at all. You'd have to look at the arguments they make to support their hypothesis, and in that case it's the arguments that succeed or don't succeed, not that there's a problem with merely going into research with an initial idea of what the outcome will be.

The accusation of "questionable 'facts'" is so often thrown out by conservatives who can't be bothered to (a) learn the facts, (b) learn what makes them facts, and (c) dispute the facts from any reasonable basis that aligns with (b). Simply saying you question the facts means nothing in itself. Lots of people question what they don't understand. If you were capable of advancing a coherent argument that wasn't just a hand-waving gesture to 'alternative facts,' I imagine you would've done it already. Hence, why I'm content to conclude your opinion is very likely uninformed, as entitled as you are to it.