Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
nytimes's profile
The New York Times
The New York Times
The New York Times
Verified account
@nytimes

Tweets

The New York TimesVerified account

@nytimes

Where the conversation begins. Follow for breaking news, special reports, RTs of our journalists and more. Visit http://nyti.ms/2FVHq9v  to share news tips.

New York City
nytimes.com
Joined March 2007

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    The New York Times‏Verified account @nytimes Oct 27

    In a French study that followed 70,000 adults, those who ate more organic food had 25% fewer cancer diagnoses over all, especially lymphoma and breast cancerhttps://nyti.ms/2EOTWbv 

    3:15 PM - 27 Oct 2018
    • 349 Retweets
    • 654 Likes
    • Kazu_T Jerry Stamm Grace Jewett Javier A Murillo colette_it_be Cady K-F Liz Wool Advanced Living Jonathan JK Morris
    46 replies 349 retweets 654 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. Diane Seguin‏ @NOAFitnessNY Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        It might be more related to the type of people organic products attract & the type of lifestyle they lead. In general more educated, higher income people buy organic they tend to smoke less, eat less ( less junk food) & exercise more ...

        3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes
      3. Maiwenn Alix‏ @MaiwennAlix Oct 27
        Replying to @NOAFitnessNY @nytimes

        And they identied and quantified those factors apparently.pic.twitter.com/u5yo09wDrC

        1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
      4. 1 more reply
      1. New conversation
      2. Jonah Shiroky‏ @Shirokes Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        Using the hazard ratio (where the 25% comes from) rather than the ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION which was 0.6% as click bait. Shame on you @nytimes

        1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes
      3. Alan Watson‏ @Alan_Watson_ Oct 29
        Replying to @Shirokes @nytimes

        Don't be so pedantic - the invited commentary in the same issue of JAMA also (and accurately!) describes it as a 25% lower risk - extract below doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4363. This is a sensible approach as it is more easily understood than absolute RRpic.twitter.com/7tw3SW6FAr

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      4. Jonah Shiroky‏ @Shirokes Oct 29
        Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @nytimes

        Will have to agree to disagree. Do you honestly believe that lay people without basic statistical knowledge won't be misled to believe that the difference is far more extreme than it is? Nowhere is there mention of absolute numbers in order to properly put that 25% into context.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. Alan Watson‏ @Alan_Watson_ Oct 29
        Replying to @Shirokes @nytimes

        @nytimes cannot be critiscised for reporting in the same terms as the invited commentary! Furthermore the timescale is limited by the 7-year study period & thus the absolute RR, unlike the HR, is likely to increase from the current 2.1% vs 1.5% given the cancer incubation period

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      6. Jonah Shiroky‏ @Shirokes Oct 29
        Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @nytimes

        I'm not debating the potential benefits of organic foods rather that statistics, as in this case, can be misleading without proper context. For someone who seems to have a firm understanding I'm surprised you so strongly disagree.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      7. Alan Watson‏ @Alan_Watson_ Oct 29
        Replying to @Shirokes @nytimes

        I am all for data being presented in the most accessible form (ideally in both HR and absolute risk with context) - but I think it is wrong to blame (or shame) the New York Times for reporting it here in a way which is so commonly used by those working on these issues.

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      8. End of conversation
      1. Aguas de março‏ @aguasdemarco Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        Except that the label "organic" in Europe, and the label "USDA Organic" have actually very little in common. DoA organic standards are extremely low. That would be a very interesting piece to see reported by NYT.

        0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. G. Hoe‏ @yychoeman Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        And I’m sure they controlled for income level, exposure to other carcinogens, age, gender, smoking, alcohol usage, geographic location, and the other thousand things that could have been factors...

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      3. Maiwenn Alix‏ @MaiwennAlix Oct 27
        Replying to @yychoeman @nytimes

        And apparently they did.pic.twitter.com/jfZfChNDqA

        1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
      4. G. Hoe‏ @yychoeman Oct 27
        Replying to @MaiwennAlix

        pic.twitter.com/Xodg0CTWoc

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      5. End of conversation
      1. WhatiFonlY‏ @yindou Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        In other words, poor people are more likely to have cancer because they can't afford to eat less carcinogenic food

        0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Frank Machin‏ @necrobiology Oct 28
        Replying to @nytimes

        Note that risk reduction is only seen in older women who are former smokers with a low overall diet quality. Directly contradicts larger study. Still, let's not let this get in the way of some clickbait.pic.twitter.com/m9O2vRWfKH

        1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      3. Alan Watson‏ @Alan_Watson_ Oct 29
        Replying to @necrobiology @nytimes

        Alan Watson Retweeted Alan Watson

        But isn't it better to read to the end of the paragraph if we want to be a bit scientific about it? We might even learn something useful about the (now regularly reported) link between NHL and pesticide/herbicide exposure too:https://twitter.com/Alan_Watson_/status/1056838764201435136 …

        Alan Watson added,

        Alan Watson @Alan_Watson_
        Replying to @necrobiology
        Er, apart from it doesn't contradict the larger study in relation to Non-hodgkins Lymphoma (which is likely the most relevant cancer in the light of the recent glyphosate litigation in the USA and the IARC conclusions on cancers caused by the most commonly used pest/herbicides) pic.twitter.com/uaTtA4JYPT
        2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      4. Frank Machin‏ @necrobiology Oct 29
        Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @nytimes

        NHL decrease in Million Women likely an artifact like link between organic food consumption and breast cancer in same paper. NHL in JAMA shows no dose response and barely statistically significant to hard to make claims about at all.

        1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. Alan Watson‏ @Alan_Watson_ Oct 29
        Replying to @necrobiology @nytimes

        EPRS notes doi: 978-92-846-0395-4 the Million Women NHL link is more interesting in the light of the comprehensive doi:10.3390/ijerph110404449 which reported 'compelling' evidence that NHL is associated with certain agrochemicals. This new NHL link should be seen in similar lightpic.twitter.com/GlDlFXpuJc

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      6. End of conversation
      1. Jack Mandora ⚖️‏ @Zemi66 Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        Allowing for genetics? Are some people not naturally predisposed and others enjoy a yet undiscovered immunity? We all can’t now run out and shop at Whole Foods. Why not make all foods safer, period?

        0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. Andrew Neville‏ @AndrewSzava Oct 27
        Replying to @nytimes

        For people who can’t be bothered to actually read the article: “Since people who eat organic food tend to be health-conscious and may benefit from other healthful behaviors [...] the researchers made adjustments to account for differences in these characteristics”

        0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo

    Loading seems to be taking a while.

    Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2018 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info