Video & Multimedia

facismrising

(16 posts)

12. Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:32 AM

May 2013

process, OBVIOUSLY THE PROCESS IS NOT THE GOLD STANDARD IT USED TO BE.

Stanford received monsanto funding, a lot of it. If the process worked and wanted to maintain respectability, it would reject any studies from institutes that receive funding that cast's into doubt the objectivity of the conslusions. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE. MONSANTO FUNDING OF STANFORD WAS NOT QUESTIONED, AT ALL.

But hey, if you want to reject learning anything new simply because it is not subjectively researched and heavily influenced by corporations that you trust, thats your right. Don't expect everyone else to value subjective evidence as you choose to do.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets [View all] Quixote1818 May 2013 OP

it is also about ingesting KT2000 May 2013 #1

It's also about building and maintaining the soil Warpy May 2013 #2

Still the yields are about 25% lower than conventional farming Quixote1818 May 2013 #3

The stanford study you quote is biased considering STANFORD RECIEVES MONSANTO FUNDING obama4socialism May 2013 #6

I have yet to see a peer reviewed study Quixote1818 May 2013 #9

Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review facismrising May 2013 #12

While most public attention sulphurdunn May 2013 #32

I garden organically, and I have more and tastier produce than my neighbors who use miracle grow Viva_La_Revolution May 2013 #20

There are over 120 peer reviewed studies here... Veilex May 2013 #22

That's true but quick review says they don't all suggest Progressive dog May 2013 #26

Science is rarely black and white. Phenols have been extolled for their virtues, but some would argue Veilex May 2013 #33

science is usually tending toward black and white, that's the point Progressive dog May 2013 #37

This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #38

Your right, in that science does try to define everything it can (The black and white analogy)... Veilex May 2013 #39

Fact is, since farmers have moved away from organic methods Progressive dog May 2013 #40

"I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction"... Veilex May 2013 #41

So where's the beef, it's not in your 120 studies Progressive dog May 2013 #42

Um, not quite Warpy May 2013 #23

She is lying! No estrogenic pesticides plus organic food is HIGHER IN IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS facismrising May 2013 #4

That study is bogus. Please post something from a science journal next time Quixote1818 May 2013 #7

Stanford MONSANTO funded study gets in Journal, OTHERS THAT SHOW ORGANIC MORE NUTRIENT DENSE facismrising May 2013 #8

I can't believe we even pay attention to the so called "mainstream" reporting anymore. They obama4socialism May 2013 #10

You mean pro-organic organizations tied the study to Monsanto Quixote1818 May 2013 #11

You like subjective research, the rest of us don't! facismrising May 2013 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #35

your assertions about cattle feed have caused me to conclude you have no credibility for this topic Kali May 2013 #24

organic is non-GMO. Cobalt Violet May 2013 #5

That isn't a winning argument. Crow73 May 2013 #30

This is classic Straw Man* crapola Berlum May 2013 #14

Yup you nailed it! The argument is flawed; Organic is BETTER! Civilization2 May 2013 #16

And yet they leave out important aspects of the Cargill funded study. fasttense May 2013 #15

Her 4 mythical myths destroyed KurtNYC May 2013 #17

yeah - that "pestilized" made me go Kali May 2013 #25

This is obviously not a clear cut black and white issue Snake Plissken May 2013 #18

organic is better fpasko May 2013 #19

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #21

That Sounds's Interesting. Any Proof of Organic-only at Monsanto HQ. dballance May 2013 #27

Suspicious timing, right after Monsanto March felix_numinous May 2013 #28

Thanks, but Crow73 May 2013 #29

That made a lot of sense Progressive dog May 2013 #31

The presentation is glib and slick..... DeSwiss May 2013 #34

very interesting discussion - thanks to all CHOCOLATMIMOSA May 2013 #36