Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266

    NYT disinfo assault on organics only makes the media look completely out of touch wit

    NYT disinfo assault on organics only makes the media look completely out of touch with reality

    Saturday, September 08, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

    Learn more: NYT disinfo assault on organics only makes the media look completely out of touch with reality

    (NaturalNews) The mainstream media's misinformation blitz following the recent release of the infamous Stanford University organic food study has sunk to an incredible new low. Based on his own misguided delusions of what the study actually concluded, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen has decided to openly share his asinine belief that all organic food is a "myth," and that growing more genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is the only way to feed the planet and save the world.

    In case you missed it, a 40-year review of research comparing organic and conventional foods that was recently published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that organic crops contain far fewer chemical pesticide residues than conventional crops, and that organic meat is far safer than conventional meat, among other findings. (http://www.nytimes.com)

    But major news outlets like the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Fox News, and others have been reporting the exact opposite of these conclusions. Headlines such as "Organic food no more nutritious than non-organic: study," and "Organic food has little health impact, study says," are attempting to deceive the public into believing the lie that conventional and GM foods are no different than organic foods.

    Very few of these articles' authors; however, have actually had the gall to mock or demonize supporters of organic food, or make outlandishly unscientific claims about the alleged health benefits of consuming more GMOs. Only NYT columnist Roger Cohen, as far as we can tell at this point in time, has adopted an almost violent attitude of opposition towards anything and everything organic, almost as if he has no idea what organic actually means.

    For your own reading entertainment, we have provided a direct link to Cohen's embarrassing pontifications illustrating his total detachment from reality: http://www.nytimes.com

    Does wanting clean food make you a nutcase? Cohen seems to think so

    Cohen expresses very early on in his rant that he has an utter distaste for the word organic, as well as everything that he thinks the word represents. Seething with hatred, phrases likening organic ideology to a "romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class," or to a form of "affluent narcissism," touch on just how vehemently Cohen despises all things organic.

    Like a rabid beast with foam spewing out of its mouth, Cohen attacks all aspects of organic "ideology," as he puts it, in his irrational rampage. Cohen leaves no stone unturned, no logical fallacy encumbered, in his pathetic attempt to convince his readers, whoever they are, that people who eat organic food are essentially no different than cult followers drinking the flavored punch at the behest of their leader.

    Oddly enough, Cohen does include a few short, and also contradictory, remarks about how organic food admittedly contains fewer chemical contaminants than conventional food, and that organic growing methods conserve the environment -- but never mind all that, we need more GMOs, for goodness sake. By purporting that organic agriculture automatically equals lower yields and poorer health, Cohen makes the dastardly claim that "nonorganic" is the food of the future, and that organic is "an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype."

    Apparently Cohen missed the comprehensive study released by the Rodale Institute back in 2011 that found that organic growing systems actually produce higher yields than conventional and GMO growing systems. The same study also found that organic food is indeed healthier than conventional food, a fact that Cohen foolishly denies throughout his blundering commentary. (Study: Organic farming outperforms conventional in yields, economic viability, conservation, and health)

    People like Cohen are a danger to humanity

    Ironically, if anyone is "off their rocker" and living in fairy tale land, it is Roger Cohen from the NYT, not the organic movement. The very attributes Cohen has assigned to those who prefer to eat clean, healthy food grown in such a way as to support local family farmers and enrich growing soils are the very attributes that are actually true about himself. Cohen has apparently adopted his own cult-like belief system in the make-believe benefits of conventional and GM agriculture as well, and nobody can convince him otherwise.

    It is rhetorical nonsense like the kind penned by Cohen in his anti-organic manifesto that actually gives more credence to superiority of organic agriculture over anything the chemical industry has been able to conjure up within the past 100 years. And any honest look at the available science will reveal that not a single GM crop has ever been shown to produce higher yields, use fewer pesticides, or help "feed the world" any better than the organic crops mankind has been growing since the beginning of time.

    Sources for this article include:

    http://www.nytimes.com

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Busted! Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda


    Learn more: Busted! Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda


    (NaturalNews) (This article is jointly authored by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of NaturalSociety.com) Over the last several days, the mainstream media has fallen for an elaborate scientific hoax that sought to destroy the credibility of organic foods by claiming they are "no healthier" than conventional foods (grown with pesticides and GMOs). NaturalNews has learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

    The New York Times (http://www.naturalnews.com/037094_Roger_Cohen_New_York_Times_organic_...), BBC and all the other publications that printed stories based on this Stanford study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals of Internal Medicine | Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review) have been victims of an elaborate scientific hoax carried out by corporate propagandists posing as "scientists."

    The evidence we show here (see below) demonstrates how this study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food. The era is different, but the anti-science tactics are the same (and many of the quack science players are the same!).

    Flawed organic food study author Ingram Olkin chief statistical 'liar' for Big Tobacco

    Here's a document from 1976 which shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin, co-author of the recent organic foods study: [Letter Regarding Dr. Ingram Olkin's Research Project]

    The so-called "research project" was proposed by Olkin, who was also at one time the chairman of Stanford's Department of Statistics.

    Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). As this page describes on the use of these statistical models: "Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality." (A Study of the Models Used in the Analysis of Certain Medical Data Ingram Olkin Stanford University)

    This research ultimately became known as the "Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function" and it was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe. (Legacy Tobacco Documents Library: Dr. Ingram Olkin "Multivariate Logistic ... (qbo66b00))

    This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!" (“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science)

    By the way, if today's "skeptics" and "science bloggers" were around in the 1950's and 60's, they would all be promoters of cigarette smoking because that was the corporate-funded scientific mythology being pushed at the time. Back then it was tobacco, today it's vaccines and pesticides. New century, new poisons, same old quack science.

    The evil Council of Tobacco Research

    As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes. One such entity known as the Council of Tobacco Research (CTR) has been openly exposed (Tobacco Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as paying off publication companies and journalists with more than $500,000 (about $3,000,000 today after adjusting for inflation) as far back as 1968 in order to generate pro-smoking propaganda. The kind of "dark propaganda" serves only to deceive and confuse consumers with phony, fabricated "scientific evidence."

    It all seems eerily similar to the organics-bashing story that just recently appeared in the New York Times, written by proven liar Roger Cohen (http://www.naturalnews.com/037094_Roger_Cohen_New_York_Times_organic_...).

    CTR was part of the massive Tobacco Institute, which was essentially a colossal group of cigarette corporations using quack science to attempt to hide the true effects of cigarettes from the public. CTR was a key player in attempting to defeat the monumental case known as the Framingham Heart Study (Framingham Heart Study) -- a historical research project that linked cigarette smoking to heart disease. It was during this time that Olkin applied to the CTR in order to oversee and conduct a project smearing and 'disproving' the Framingham study.

    This can be proven simply by examining the words of the cigarette manufacturer lawyers who were desperate to defeat the potentially devastating heart study. In their own documents, they state ([Recommending Approval of Olkin's CTR Proposal]):

    "I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin's interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the "multivariate logistic risk function."

    In an even more telling statement, Olvin's "sidekick" Dr. Kastenbaum, was revealed to be highly knowledgeable "tobacco industry's participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use, the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and the marketing of tobacco products to children." In other words, these scientists were part of a massive deception campaign intended to smear any real information over the serious dangers of cigarette smoking using 'black ops' disinformation techniques.

    This deception campaign is being paralleled once again, in 2012, with the quack science assault on organics (and a simultaneous defense of GMOs). Biotech = Big Tobacco. "GMOs are safe" is the same as "cigarettes are safe." Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities.

    Dr. Kastenbaum, by the way, went on to become the Director of Statistics for the Tobacco Institute intermittently from 1973 to 1987. Another name for his job role is "corporate science whore."

    Organics study co-author was hired to perform scientific "hatchet jobs"

    Further documents (Confidential Report Prepared by Industry Counsel and Forwarded to B&W in-House Counsel and in-House Counsel for Other Tobacco Companies, with Whom B&W Maintains A Common Legal Interest, Regarding Funding of Ctr Special Projects Research) go on to state that Olkin then received a grant from the CTR for his work alongside disinformation specialist Dr. Katenbaum in an effort to perform "deliberate hatchet jobs" on the heart study as described by author Robert N. Proctor Golden in his book entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition (http://books.google.com/books?id=YP2dHzxkx5cC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=f...). Golden explains how Olkin was paid off along with others to falsely testify in Congress that cigarette smoking did not harm the heart:

    "George L. Saiger from Columbia University received CTR Special Project funds 'to seek to reduce the correlation of smoking and disease by introduction of additional variables'; he also was paid $10,873 in 1966 to testify before Congress, denying the cigarette-cancer link...

    This was the same organization that paid what amounts after inflation to over one million dollars to journalists and major publications to disseminate phony information supporting their claims. It's also important to note that during this time Olkin was still prominently placed within Stanford, remaining so even after openly concealing the truth about the cigarette heart disease link from the public.

    Now, Olkin's newest research fails to address any real factors in the difference between conventional GMO-loaded food and organic. At the same time, it absolutely reeks of the similar 'black ops' disinformation campaigns from the 1960's and 70's in which he was heavily involved.

    Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.

    Stanford secrecy, plus ties to Monsanto and Cargill

    Stanford receives more secret donations than any other university in the U.S. In 2009 alone, these donations totaled well over half a billion dollars. (articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/local/la-me-donate4-2010feb04)

    There's little doubt that many of these donations come from wealthy corporations who seek to influence Stanford's research, bending the will of the science departments to come into alignment with corporate interests (GMOs, pesticides, etc.).

    Who is George H Poste?
    Monsanto ~ George H. Poste

    • Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
    • Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
    • Served on the Monsanto board since February 2003.
    • Former member of the Defense Science Board of the U.S. Department of Defense.

    Stanford University has also accepted $5 million in donations from food giant Cargill (a big supporter of the biotech industry) in order to expand Stanford's Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). "Food security" is a euphemism for genetically engineered crops. Much of the research conducted there is done to try to advocate GMOs (http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/search/?query=genetically+modified&c...).

    Cargill has also donated big dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California. (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/12952-monsanto-du...)

    The "scientific" Hall of Shame - a list of scientists funded by the Tobacco industry to fake scientific results

    The CRT is the Council of Tobacco Research -- essentially a scientific front group that was set up to attempt to invoke "science" to "prove" that cigarettes were not bad for your health.

    This list just proves how easily scientists sell out to corporate interests when given grant money. Remember: What Big Tobacco pulled off with fake science in the 20th century, Big Biotech is pulling off yet again today.

    Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-...

    Documents reflect that, at a minimum, the following individuals and organizations received funding through Special Account No. 4 beginning in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s: Able-Lands, Inc.; Lauren Ackerman; ACVA Atlantic Inc.; George Albee; Aleph Foundation; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Aspen Conference; Atmospheric Health Sciences; Domingo Aviado; James Ballenger; Alvan L. Barach; Walter Barker; Broda 0. Barnes; Battelle Columbus Laboratories; Battelle Memorial Institute; Walter Becker; Peter Berger; Rodger L. Bick; Billings & Gussman, Inc.; Richard Bing; BioResearch Laboratories; Theodore Blau; Irvin Blose; Walter Booker; Evelyn J. Bowers; Thomas H. Brem; Lyman A. Brewer, III; Brigham Young University; Oliver Brooke; Richard Brotman; Barbara B. Brown; K. Alexander Brownlee; Katherine Bryant; Victor B. Buhler; Thomas Burford; J. Harold Burn; Marie Burnett; Maurice Campbell; Carney Enterprises, Inc.; Duane Carr; Rune Cederlof; Domenic V. Cicchetti; Martin Cline; Code Consultants Inc.; Cohen, Coleghety Foundation, Inc.; Colucci, & Associates, Inc.; Computerland; W. Clark Cooper; A. Cosentino; Daniel Cox; Gertrude Cox; CTR; Geza De Takato; Bertram D. Dimmens; Charles Dunlap; Henry W. Elliott; Engineered Energy Mgt. Inc.; Environmental Policy Institute; J. Earle Estes; Frederick J. Evans; William Evans; Expenses related to Congressional Hearings in Washington D.C.; Hans J. Eysenck; Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry; Jack M. Farris; Sherwin J. Feinhandler; Alvan R. Feinstein; Herman Feldman; Edward Fickes; T. Finley; Melvin First; Edwin Fisher; R. Fisher; Merritt W. Foster; Richard Freedman; Herbert Freudenberger; Fudenberg; Arthur Furst; Nicholas Gerber; Menard M. Gertler; Jean Gibbons; Carl Glasser; Donald Goodwin; B. Greenberg; Alan Griffen; F. Gyntelberg; Harvard Medical School; Hearings-Kennedy-Hart Bill; William Heavlin; Norman Heimstra; Joseph Herkson; Richard J. Hickey; Carlos Hilado; Charles H. Hine; Hine, Inc.; Harold C. Hodge; Gary Huber; Wilhelm C. Hueper; Darrell Huff; Duncan Hutcheon; Industry Research Liaison Committee; Information Intersciences, Inc.; International Consultancy; International Technology Corporation; International Information Institute, Inc.; J.B. Spalding Statistical Service; J.F. Smith Research Account; Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan; Joseph Janis; Roger Jenkins; Marvin Kastenbaum; Leo Katz; Marti Kirschbaum; Kravetz Levine & Spotnitz; Lawrence L. Kuper; Mariano La Via; H. Langston; William G. Leaman; Michael Lebowitz; Samuel B. Lehrer; William Lerner; Edward Raynar Levine; G.J. Lieberman; S.C. Littlechild; Eleanor Macdonald; Thomas Mancuso; Nathan Mantel; R. McFarland; Meckler Engineering Group; Milton Meckler; Nancy Mello; Jack Mendelson; Michigan State University; Marc Micozzi; Irvin Miller; K. Moser; Albert Niden; Judith O'Fallon; John O'Lane; William Ober; J.H. Ogura; Ronald Okun; Ingram Olkin; Thomas Osdene (Philip Morris); Peat, Marwick Main & Co.; Thomas L. Petty; Pitney, Hardin & Kipp; Leslie Preger; Walter J. Priest; R. Proctor; Terrence P. Pshler; Public Smoking Research Group; R.W. Andersohn & Assoc.; L.G.S. Rao; Herbert L. Ratcliffe; Attilio Renzetti; Response Analysis Project; Response Analysis Consultation; R.H. Rigdon; Jay Roberts; Milton B. Rosenblatt; John Rosencrans; Walter Rosenkrantz; Ray H. Rosenman; Linda Russek; Henry Russek; Ragnar Rylander; George L. Saiger; D.E. Sailagyi; I. Richard Savage; Richard S. Schilling; Schirmer Engineering Corp.; S. Schor; G.N. Schrauzer; Charles Schultz; John Schwab; Carl L. Seltzer; Murray Senkus (Reynolds); Paul Shalmy; R. Shilling; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Henry Shotwell; Allen Silberberg; N. Skolnik; JF Smith; Louis A. Soloff; Sheldon C. Sommers (CTR); JB Spalding; Charles Spielberg; Charles Spielberger; Lawrence Spielvogel; St. George Hospital & Medical School; Stanford Research Institution Project; Russell Stedman; Arthur Stein; Elia Sterling; Theodor Sterling; Thomas Szasz; The Foundation for Research in Bronchial Asthma and Related Diseases; The Futures Group; Paul Toannidis; Trenton, New Jersey Hearings; Chris P. Tsokos; University of South Florida; Helmut Valentin; Richard Wagner; Norman Wall; Wayne State University; Weinberg Consulting Group; Roger Wilson; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Jack Wiseman; George Wright; John P. Wyatt; J. Yerushalmy; and Irving Zeidman.

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Agricultural giant Cargill and others behind anti-organic 'Stanford Study'

    Saturday, September 15, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    (NaturalNews) The corporate media machine has once again done the people of the world a great disservice by shirking its responsibility to conduct a proper investigation and inquiry into the issue of organics following the recent release of the infamous Stanford University anti-organic study. It turns out that the study, which many mainstream media outlets have been citing as divine truth, is nothing more than corporate-sponsored propaganda pushing an industrial agriculture agenda.

    If the "lamestream" media had bothered to take even 10 minutes to investigate who was behind this latest attack on organic food, it would have realized that corporate food giant Cargill, the Monsanto-aligned Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, British Petroleum (BP), and Goldman Sachs are among the many corporate donors that made the study possible. And since both Cargill and Monsanto have a vested interest in seeing organics fail, it is no surprise that the study came to the ridiculous conclusions that it did.


    Stanford's Food Security and the Environment program a product of Cargill

    Another important little factoid that mainstream news readers are not being told is that Stanford University's Food Security and the Environment program, which was responsible for producing the study, exists primarily because of large cash infusions made to it by Cargill. According to Cargill's own website (http://www.cargill.com), the agri-giant has established a 25-year partnership with Stanford to conduct "research, teaching, and outreach" as part of the program.

    An announcement made last November also reveals that Cargill has awarded Stanford several large cash infusions totaling $5 million (http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu). This money has been specifically earmarked for fostering "long-term solutions for issues of food security, food and diet diversification, food subsidies, and food safety," among other purposes. As can be expected, part of this effort includes deliberately conducting junk studies like the anti-organic study that advance the corporate food agenda.

    Big Ag trying to squash organics, normalize GMOs

    What all this means, of course, is that the Stanford anti-organic study is anything but an unbiased assessment of organic food. By design, the study appears to have been intended to both minimize the value of organic food, and maximize the supposed value of conventional and genetically modified (GM) food. And the ultimate goal of this equalization effort is to increase public acceptance of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), particularly as states like California ramp up to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. (Yes on Prop 37)

    "When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot," writes Tony Cartalucci on his blog Land Destroyer Report about the mainstream media's blitzkrieg on organics following the release of the fraudulent Stanford study.

    "The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically-modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products."

    Be sure to check out Cartalucci's complete report, which serves as a solid rebuttal to yet another inane editorial that tries to use the Stanford study to advocate feeding pesticides and GMOs to babies: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com





    Learn more: Agricultural giant Cargill and others behind anti-organic 'Stanford Study'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •