30 Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Ingram Olkin needs to REMOVED from Stanford and revoked access to performing any studies.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Yes. We must only allow academic freedom for those with which we agree…all others must be silenced, right?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Thank you so much for this article

  3. Amazing… you called it guys.

  4. I really appreciate this article. Cargill bought the company where I work. I didn't know where they stood on food. Now I know. Keep telling the truth!

  5. I work at a Cargill plant. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

  6. Eliot W. Collins says:

    Dr. Ingram Olkin was born on July 23, 1924. He is 88! That is three years older than the Pope! Perhaps he should retire.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This needs to get out to everyone.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Scammers are behind most studies like these. Great job.

  9. Jeffrey Miller says:

    Isn’t KWMU funded in large part by Monsanto? Hmmm?

  10. Well done. As always follow the money…who benefits from the propaganda….somehow the GMO cartel will always be there.

    Brilliant sleuthing, but I wonder if the gullible BBC, Daily Mail and other Mainstream Media sheep will admit their error and pick up the torch for the cause? Of course not, they need the advertising revenue, or, in the case of the BBC, they are just a lost cause.

  11. Unfortunately, this goes on to some degree in all universities. Academics who are independent of the vested interests and who stand up for public benefit issues are removed from universities. As universities seek more money from outside sources (rich companies with strong vested interests)there independence becomes more compromised.

  12. John Walter says:

    So this is really the best you can do? Days of digging and you come up with a personal attack against one man at Stanford and the fact that the school takes corporate donations? Do you have any idea how crazy this comes off? An you still ignore the hundreds of underlying peer-reviewed studies that went into this research? Ha! Nice try, organic food big money! Oh wait? Follow the money doesn't work both ways, huh?

  13. John Walter says:

    Quaint. Scrubbing comments that don't fully back your position, eh? Not a big surprise. Real science can withstand scrutiny. The claims posted above cannot.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for this report

  15. The timing of the study was just a little too perfect, wasn't it? Did any of the "journalists" of mainstream corporate media, who repeated what they were told, bother looking into who the authors of the study were? I know, silly question.

    Thank you!!!

  16. I am disappointed to see the ad hominem arguments and other logical fallacies to discredit the research at Standford, which if you paid attention is actually a study of other studies called a meta-analysis. In the hierarchy of scientific research this type of analysis holds a lot of wieght.

    1. Anonymous says:

      You're hilarious. It's not an ad hominem but showing how CORRUPT the author is.

    2. All universities are often deeply involved with corporations and depend partly on them. In the areas where it doesn't harm the hand that feeds them they try, unsuccessfully, to build some credit.

      It is so obvious.

  17. Anonymous says:

    http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

  18. Anonymous says:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

    http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

  19. Anonymous says:

    "…a “multivariate” statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science)."

    So, multivariate statistics = lying? Ummm…that sounds pretty anti-science to me.

  20. Seriously?? You're going to slander a company for supporting research on issues of food security and how to sustainably raise more food on less land to feed a growing population?? You're going to dismiss the "idea" of food security?? Have you ever stepped food in a developing country??? Where there are real poor people?? These issues are complicated, and I think they warrant deeper thought than just slinging uneducated opinions from one side to the other. We are such egotistical, self-righteous developed country snobs.

    1. Deborah Cady says:

      Always look at the money trail for the agenda of the idea for the research, and the results. It seemed so obvious that shoddy information gathering took place for this research paper. If you read critiques of the research itself, the method of compiling the information has been questioned from the beginning.

      Keep in mind that research needs to be funded. Ask yourself: who has deep pockets today and who would want to steer the consumer in the direction that this research paper has endeavored to do.

    2. Deborah Cady says:

      Stanford and commercial agri-business is not interested in sustainable farming and the article did not address such. Agri- business is concerned only with cheap farming practices and food production. Their concern is the BOTTOM-LINE.

      The article did not address food security.

      Real sustainable farming by peoples of Africa have had their sustainable practices squashed by big American agri-business who demand they use pesticides and buy new seed every season. Ass a result, some African countries no longer welcome American chemical and agri-businesses.

  21. waxing philosophical says:

    Just goes to show, the "evidence-based" model of medicine is flawed. – See:

    Steve Hickey & Hilary Robert ‘s book: “Tarnished Gold: The Sickness of Evidence-based Medicine.”

    Also see:

    Article: Science for Sale….
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dange

  22. I greatly enjoy your articles, however this one makes me question your understanding of the scientific method and statistics in general. You have misrepresented the statements in the article you referenced, which by the way was nothing more than an opinion paper based on 45 year old outdated statistical techniques. You quoted: “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality." This statement is taken put of context and actually supports the use of multivariate analysis. What the author was saying is that univariate techniques fail to account for the fact that science does not happen in a vacuum. Research that focuses on a single factor fails to recognize that other factors are also influencing the results. As for the Stanford study on organics, I have not read it and although I disagree with how you misrepresented the facts, I do not disagree with the fact that it is very easy for a statistician twist results, and very easy to get the media to jump on the band wagon of junk science. Kudos to you for asking the tough questions, but shame on you for misrepresenting how sound multivariate statistical techniques function.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *