On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:14:02 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Gordon Couger wrote:
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

She claimed association with Oregon State University.
She referenced a paper that didn't exist. When it was later published
it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials and data that didn't agree
with the findings was discarded with out being included an marked in
the paper.

The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from.

The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth.

It was an EPA paper no peer review.

.. she discarded data.
The comment was. "out liers were discarded". That means inconsistant data
was tossed out. Since it was sprouting of wheat seeds it makes one wonder.
The conventional metod for discarding data is to leave it in the plot and
mark it so people can see what you did.

It was Elaine Ingham and she was one of the authors of the paper that
handn't been published. snip

well, thanks for naming the researcher you are referring to.

That means we can more precisely relate to your accusations:

a) "She claimed association with Oregon State University."

That's perhaps innuendo. If meant to be read with the implication that
she claimed that deceitfully. Elaine Ingham has a long standing
association with the Oregon State University.

b) "She referenced a paper that didn't exist."

That's a false claim. In the evidence given by Elaine Ingham to the NZ
Royal Commission in 2001 she referred to a paper that existed, and had
been published two years before her appearance. She referenced the
paper in Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) p. 67-78. Unfortunately, in
the written evidence to the commission the reference to the paper
appeared as Applied Soil Ecology 3 (1999) 394-399.

c) "When it was later published"

That's innuendo based on false claim. See b) above. The paper was
published two years before she referenced it.

d) "it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials"

That's false. The paper did not claim any such thing.

e) "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded with out
being included an marked in the paper."

That's baseless. There's no indication in the paper that data was
discarded on the basis of them not agreeing with the findings of the
paper.

f) "The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from."

That's highly dubious. The paper was published in Applied Soil
Ecology, a peer reviewed journal. Additionally peer reviewed by the US
EPA, and approved for publication as an EPA document.

g) "The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth."

But, curiously Gordon -- in your efforts to back that up you
produced evidence only to indicate that YOU take a great deal
of liberty with the truth :-)

Seriously, I think you owe Elaine Ingham an apology.