Published by
Stanford Medicine

In the News, Nutrition, Public Health, Research, Stanford News

Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying

Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying

I’ve worked in the medical school’s news office for more than a decade, and I recall only a handful of studies getting the type of media attention that our organic-food one has gotten. (In case you missed it: Researchers here found little evidence of health benefits from organic foods. Senior author Dena Bravata, MD, MS, told one reporter that based on the findings, she doesn’t “go out of my way to buy organic food anymore.”) The attention isn’t that surprising: Many people have strong feelings about organic foods, and I suspect many more – reporters included – want to know if buying organic is worth their money.

Journalists from around the world jumped on the story, and here’s a sampling of what they and their sources had to say about the research.

ABC News’ Liz Neporent:

So the bottom line? Not all conventionally grown foods contain residue nor are organics always the more virtuous choice. A good rule of thumb: Skin can protect the fruit or vegetable from any pesticide exposure so when the outside can be peeled away, it may not be worth spending the extra cash for organic.

The Bad Deal’s Ryan Sutton:

But here’s the thing: Many of us who pay more for organic or free range meats and vegetables don’t actually expect something healthier. And we don’t pay more for fewer pesticides or to reduce our exposure to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

We pay more for organic or free range products because we believe it’s the right thing to do. We want to support the farmers and growers who treat their animals, their crops and mother nature’s land with respect and dignity. And even though “organics” and “free range” have become part of BIG FOOD, we believe that it’s a better way of doing things.

Discovery News’ Emily Sohn:

Together, the results are too inconclusive and disparate to draw any major conclusions, said Betsy Wattenberg, a toxicologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

In order to really know anything about food-related risks that people tend to care most about, such as cancer or reproductive and developmental health issues, we would need carefully controlled studies that last for years or even decades.

Those kinds of studies don’t exist, and they are likely impossible to do.

Writer @michaelpollan [discussing a New York Times article on the study]:

Read closely: 1, not as negative as headlines suggest. 2. nutrition has never been imp. case for organic.

New York Times’ Kenneth Chang:

The conclusions [of this study] will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying.

NPR’s David Greene:

I feel kind of duped. I mean, I was in a grocery store and was seriously thinking about buying organic raspberries the other day – I figured, [if] organic it must be better. How did this industry explode and become this big without someone at some point earlier saying ‘you know, we don’t know if this is any better?’

Reuters Health’s Genevra Pittman:

Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said that while the jury is still out on [the effects of pesticides], people should consider pesticide exposure in their grocery-shopping decisions.

“If I was a smart consumer, I would choose food that has no pesticides,” Lu, who wasn’t involved in the new study, told Reuters Health. “I think that’s the best way to protect your health.”

He said more research is necessary to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods, and that it’s “premature” to conclude organic meat and produce isn’t any healthier than non-organic versions.

The Atlantic’s Brian Fung:

That we needed a study to understand how nutritionally similar organic foods are to non-organics is a perfect example of the way we’ve lost sight of what the term really means. It’s worth keeping in mind that organic refers only to a particular method of production; while switching to organic foods can be good for you insofar as doing so helps you avoid nasty things like chemicals and additives, there’s nothing in the organic foods themselves that gives them an inherent nutritional advantage over non-organics. In other words, it’s not wrong to say organic food is “healthier” than non-organics. It’s just unrealistic to think that your organic diet is slowly turning you into Clark Kent.

WebMD’s Brenda Goodman:

Nutrition experts praised the research since it helps to dispel some myths that might make people afraid to eat fresh fruits and vegetables.

“I don’t want that mom who’s at the grocery store to feel guilty if she can’t afford organic. That mom shouldn’t feel like she’s making a lesser choice,” [Melissa Joy Dobbins, RD, MS, a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics] says.

Previously: Research shows little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional ones
Photo by Walmart Stores

34 Responses to “ Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying ”

  1. Rose Says:

    Who sponsored the study? I think you need to be very upfront about this.

    Also, the food industry has not demonstrated the benefits of human consumption of pesticides, antibiotics and corn-fed meat from animals that really ought to be eating grass.

    I am not impressed with this short-term study.

  2. Michelle Brandt Says:

    The authors received no external funding for the study.

  3. Ashley Says:

    So where did the internal funding come from?

  4. Kyle Says:

    I would like to know what nutrients the foods were tested for? Were the foods tested grown in the same area and under the same conditions because this affects the nutrient level? Also there are nutrients we only recently discovered such as flavoniods and a few others that we are unsure of what they do, however, they are significantly higher in foods that have not been treated with artificial chemicals.
    If the produce was truly organic it should have no residue of pesticides and so why is it even a question about the trace amounts present. If any were detected, I would question the source of the produce. This being said there are different standards for what is organic. Many of the farmers in my area that I have talked to say they use no chemicals and will not classify a product as organic until the land it is grown on has not had chemicals used on the land for more than three years. Some farmers do not use such strict standards.

  5. KJMClark Says:

    I have five problems with the study:

    1. Lay people can’t get access to the actual study without paying $20 for 24 hours of access. Articles behind a paywall like that aren’t really in the public domain.

    2. This study doesn’t conclude that organic isn’t more nutritious (according to the brief conclusion in the abstract), it concludes, “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” That could just as easily be to a lack of good or conclusive studies, which wouldn’t be too surprising since the National Organic Program has only been around a decade and small organic farms don’t have lots of money laying around to fund studies.

    3. I suspect that the studies they cite are comparing like fruits/vegetables, but unrepresentative baskets. I have a small organic farm. We don’t grow any of the varieties commercial or large organic producers grow, since we’re growing food for immediate consumption – no shipping and handling chain in our produce. Studies don’t typically compare dissimilar products because it’s hard to isolate the reasons for differences. But in the case of organic foods, you have to compare a basket of goods to another basket of goods. So, four ears of commercial sweet corn bought in a store to four ears of sweet corn bought from a small organic farmer (and picked the day before). Compare four heirloom tomatoes grown on a small organic farm and picked the day before to four commercially-grown hothouse tomatoes picked a week ago and bought in a grocery store.

    4. GMOs? The big reasons people buy organic are less/safer pesticides/herbicides, no GMOs, more natural animal treatment, fresher produce, better taste (usually from different variety choice and freshness), better nutrition, better land stewardship, and better animal husbandry. The study appears to only look at nutrition (likely in a flawed way as noted above), antibiotics in livestock products, and pesticide residue.

    5. The problem with synthetic pesticides/herbicides/fungicides is that there aren’t long-term studies showing they have no effects on human health and development. What is considered a safe level of a particular chemical today is fairly likely to be considered unsafe in the future. DDT, atrazine, carbofuran, etc. were once considered safe at certain levels. Others like chlorpyrifos are being questioned now because they may cause developmental problems. There are long lists of now banned chemicals that were once used in commercial farming. There are other long lists of currently used farm chemicals, many of which will be restricted in the future. Those aren’t used in organic farming. Never have been.

    I’d really like to read the study (*please* post a link to a public domain copy!), but I doubt it really covers all of that. Too bad it’s getting so much press without the extra scrutiny.

  6. Stanford researcher chats live about the health benefits of organic foods | Scope Blog Says:

    […] Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying and Research shows little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional […]

  7. Skeptik Says:

    I agree: I buy organic food and have been buying it because of what is NOT in there, not because I believe it is more nutritious. How come everybody is talking about a study which is nowhere to be found? Where is this study? Who financed it and why? What was the indication? And why isn’t there more than a random conclusion on the net?
    Very thin stuff indead!

  8. Michelle Brandt Says:

    Skeptik, the study appears in the current issue of Annals of Internal Medicine and can be found at A detailed story on the research can be found at As stated above, the researchers received no outside funding for this work.

  9. heppa Says:

    I have some questions and comments here about the study:
    -national organic standard has only been around for a decade and this study used materials over four decades? What did organic mean 40 years ago? 30 years ago? We have come a long way in the last 10 years.
    -what are the nutrients that were measured? Were trace minerals included? Trace minerals, soil beneficial fungi and carbon content are depleted by chemical fertilizers over years of use. It affects the nutreint content of the plants gradually.
    -I grow my garden with no man made sythetic chemicals and aim for high nutrient density, beoynd organic standards. There are many farmers who do likewise. Has anyone analyzed the full spectrum of nutrient content (more than just vitamins) of their produce? If taste is an indicator, we are much better off!
    -conventional farming is devastating to soil and water health in addition to the health of the people and animals who eat the food. I have a herd of horses whose health was dramatically improved when I switched to organic farming practices in the field where they live. I have soil tests to prove the change in the soil and no vet bills in the last few years and much sounder horses to ride

  10. Jenny B Says:

    Strange…. you mean the absence of pesticides DOESN’T change the nutritional content of food? (note sarcasm). Largely, I was unimpressed with this article. I did think the point about considering the additional green house gases is an important factor when deciding what is “best” for the enviornment. Otherwise, all stuff we knew: There’s not much regulation on the “organic” label so you need to know your farmers, trust your store to research the farmers, or cross your fingers and leap. The nutritional content of food is affected by the ground it’s grown on (rotational crop vs NPK, how long between the crop being picked and being delivered to your table, etc… not how many chemicals are put on after….

  11. Maheswar Ghimire Says:

    This study raised several issues within Organic Sectors as challenges and especially for researcher/scientist and professor about their incompetency and gap of real scientific knowledge. Science, wisdom, innovation, creativity and several dimension are not only the product of objective orientation which can be mechanistic and possible to judge with the help of microscope or scanner. Rather these are century old tradition and outcome of subjective realm of knowledge and mechanistic science contributed very little as a supplement. These are few conceptual thought. I just want to ask Researcher “can you determine an individual’s magnitude of yes/no taste for any food/drink, can you determine whether an individual like aroma of any fragrance and vitality of food once it is eaten by an individual and pass through the metabolism process? Do you think a plant need only 17 elements or further more which are available from nature and not possible to detect from any means of scientific appliances?

  12. KG Says:

    For a more accurate evaluation of the evidence this study purports to summarize, see this LA Times editorial:,0,5514318.story

    It’s a shame that the bulk of the media coverage not only takes the authors’ misleading conclusions at face value, but completely ignores the larger impact of conventional agribusiness. Are we so selfish that it’s okay to let others sicken and die just so we can pay less for produce?

  13. Cindy Says:

    This study is absolutely shocking, not in its conclusions, but for the superficiality of scientific thought that went into it. Fortunately for Stanford, the study wasn’t funded by the government, or it would be facing accusations of fraud and waste.

    This study began with a faulty premise, which one of the authors worded as “Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious.” SOME? Who is “Some”? Who said that? If you ask people who buy organic, they would likely say they buy it because (1) they prefer unpoisoned food and (2) they want to support farms that produce organic food. Did you do a study to figure that out first?

    This study ends with a faulty conclusion: There is no benefit. You can’t rule out ALL benefits simply because you didn’t find a nutritional benefit. Besides, the study itself states that there have not been any long term studies on nutritional benefits of organic food. The non-existence of data doesn’t equate to the non-existence of benefits!!!!!

    What I really find stunning (and suspicious) is that this is not the first time I’ve heard this announcement, that a study has found that organic food is not better for you, so you can stop buying it now. At the very least, you are wasting time, effort, and money. At the worst, you are shilling for the chemical industry. Please do us all a favor and do a study on whether people who consume nerve-agent-like organophosphate pesticides in their food are more or less healthy than people who don’t. THAT might be worth something.

  14. Canyon99 Says:

    Clearly the lemmings will hold onto false beliefs about health long after the facts are printed. This was a meta-analysis not a simple scientific study. Maybe these comments are better indication of what is NOT a benefit–public education!

  15. Shelley Says:

    Two suggested follow up publications on this study:

    Rumors are going around that Cargill funded this study. You may want to go into more detail about what is meant by “internal funding”.

    I wouldn’t mind the study authors responding to the paper by Charles Benbrook with criticisms of the study’s methodology and statistic reporting:

    And the complaint about the study being behind a firewall is justified. If the study authors are going to make sweeping announcements to the press, they have an ethical obligation to ensure all the data is available to the public. Their handling of the study’s release does not reflect what I think of as the highest standard of integrity.

  16. Michelle Brandt Says:

    Shelley, some of the researchers on the paper were funded by the university; other than that, there was no funding for this research. The decision about public availability of the paper comes from the journal.

  17. Verena Rosskopf Says:

    This so called “study” or review are in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which rather surprises me. A colourful throwing together studies with different purposes, 17 on humans, 3 clinical, the rest nutritient and contaminant levels (notably only english-language, this is only a part of the world). But the comment on limitations is honest: Studies were heterogenous and limited in number and publication bias may be present. Somebody else wrote it before: not worth the paper it printed on. Big question mark why a renowned journal publishes it.

  18. Golden Rule Says:

    What a bunch of lame responses. There is no convincing some people – organic is far superior in all ways to conventional – if you look into it deeper than these shallow forays, you will realize without a doubt. Here’s a simple example: if a mineral is not in the soil, it will not be in the plant. Conventional replaces NPK and maybe the odd mineral such as boron. Organics, utilizing compost and cover crops and perhaps even seaweed as fertilizer maintains or increases the mineral availability and the micro-organisms assist the plant in absorbing them. Conventional farming “mines” the minerals, ie: iron was found to be much higher decades ago in spinach compared to today, google it! This is one small example. These kinds of studies are a joke and set human evolution back years. These conventional pesticide-doused, NPK-fertilized, simplistic methods will be looked back upon as the dark ages of agriculture.

  19. Randy Says:

    So, you did not actually do a study you just embarked on a data reduction of other studies.

    Since you did not find anything either way, you declare that there is no evidence to suggest organic is better for you?

    Really? “The duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.”
    How can you make a conclusion like this when the longest study is 2 years? It takes longer than that for asbestos to cause cancer.

    How can a report make this claim “Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds” contain the following sentences?
    “researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination” & my favorite “Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets” Replace the word pesticide with poison and rings differently in my ear.

    Why can you just state, that we really need better and long term studies to make a determination? Making a statement like this is irresponsible and misleading.

    As an Engineer I feel that if I were to make a statement like this I would be laughed at.

  20. Richard Schiffman Says:

    Stanford say there is no external funding for the study. This is misleading. Stanford receives funding from the agro-giant Cargill (5 million dollars in one year alone) British Petroleum and many other large corporations for its research projects. So it is disingenuous to say that there is “no external funding.”

  21. Celeste Says:

    Michelle Brandt says: “….some of the researchers on the paper were funded by the university; other than that, there was no funding for this research.”

    When I “follow the money” through one of the funding Stanford foundations, I find Cargill, BP, Bechtel and they are large corporate donors to the Stanford foundation which ultimately funded the study.

  22. Debbie LeBlanc Says:

    I new this study was suspect as soon as I read about it. I, too, would like to know who paid for (sponsored) the research. Dr Benbrook of the Organic Center wrote an excellent response to this study. (
    I have no faith in what Stanford University has to say if this is what they pass off as a meta-analysis. Clearly meant to be biased and misleading.

  23. James Hillhouse Says:

    Perhaps Stanford University will release the soil profiles of both the Organic and the Conventional growing material.
    I recommend Stanford investigate the research of Andre Voisin and William A. Albrecht.
    Stanford may have opened a large opportunity to investigate a area of world concern.
    A lot of us really care.

  24. Arden Nelson, DVM Says:

    I have read the published paper. Here I present the conclusions that the 12 authors present in the discussion portion of their paper. The words are mine. The conclusions are theirs.

    Finding #1. Organic produce has higher levels of phosphorus.

    Finding #2. Organic produce has higher levels of phenols.

    Finding #3. Organic chicken has higher levels of vaccenic acid.

    Finding #4. Organic milk has higher beneficial fatty acids (Vaccenic acid and CLA)

    Finding #5. Higher TVA in breast milk of mothers eating organic food.

    Finding #6. Organic produce has 81% lower risk of pesticide contamination.

    Finding #7. Organic poultry and pork have 67% lower risk of being contaminated with bacteria that are resistant to 3 or more antibiotics.

    Do these conclusions appear to have any relationship to the conclusions that are being bantered about in the press?

    Best of health to you and yours through perspective enhancement.

  25. Julie Weldon Says:

    After reading most of the comments and the (I’ll just call it bogus) ‘study’….I’ve only got a few comments to make:
    As a cancer survivor (then patient), I chose to become even more ‘picky’ of everything that went into my body, and as such, I was actually monitored and documented for what ‘that’ was since I had NO side effects and required NO additional drug therapies throughout the course of my chemotherapy and isolated radiation treatments. (breast cancer, 10 years out – YAY).
    I also must add – when was the last time any of you actually went to a doctor who really told you how to properly treat yourself without synthetic drugs or other ‘medicine’? They can’t, won’t and those who do are generally doing so from another platform (as a FORMER doctor)…..we all know doctors don’t make money on well people, eh. And, they BURY their mistakes, since it’s a ‘practice’ of medicine, on we the guinea pigs.
    I’d trust my veterinarians and/or surgeons over regular practicing physicians on any given day – they have more loyalty to the patient, understand better the unspoken behaviours and can better adapt therapies to actually cure the problem rather than treat symptoms……
    Why would a paper such as this ‘study’ be so promoted without the needed scrutiny? Who would stand to gain from it? Hmmm – lets’ see….maybe it was an effort to dissuade or curtail the HUGE growth that organics have enjoyed over the past decade…..maybe it’s an effort to keep people from becoming healthier and more confident in their own abilities to ‘heal thyself’.
    Whatever the case, I’m continuing my HEALTHIER LIFE and I’m attributing A GOOD DEAL of that to a WHOLESOME & fully nutritional diet, one without GMO’s, or or any other pesky little ‘long chain of internal damage’ that the ‘chemical world’ would much rather see me consume.
    If I think about it much longer, I’ll want to start a march or something! Leave My Organics Alone! Make more, make better! Stop creating confusion among the masses! Educate with THE TRUTH, the WHOLE and NATURAL truth!

  26. Carlos Says:

    This study is inconclusive they did not take into account the growing methods, quality of soil which are very important in the nutrient the plant gets. I know many farmers, growers, have worked on farms.The growing method can make or break the amount of nutrients the plant gets. Conventional uses a standard NPK fertilizer where most organic farming methods go beyond NPK using manure, compost, mycellium, etc. Also we are not taking into consideration hydroponic, aquaponic methods which can also yield even higher nutrient dense foods which will blow way anything grown on a a standard NPK. they would have been better to say if you want nutrient based food know what the source is and how they grew it. nutrients have to do with growing method its not about organic vs conventional, also the older food gets the lesser vitamins. another factor they did not even mention in this study how old was these food?

  27. Jenne Says:

    So, why didn’t the authors choose open access publication for this analysis of the literature?

    This highlights an interesting information literacy problem: a primary research study is described with the same term- ‘a study’- as a review analysis of the published literature.

  28. Grand Roundup: Top posts for the week of Sept. 9 | Scope Blog Says:

    […] Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying: A collection of reactions from journalists and sources featured in various articles in response to the Stanford researchers’ new study on the health benefits of organic foods. […]

  29. A Food News Round Up You Can ‘Smell’ « Emily Contois Says:

    […] Stanford Medicine’s News Office responds to the study’s media attention. […]

  30. KM Says:

    There’s a lot of hoopla about this, not because this study says organic food is no better nutritionally than non-organic (DUH!), but because the people who tend to buy organic do so for quasi-religious reasons, and any attack against their precious “mother earth” demigod is treated as an attack against their religion.

    The fervor on display with any proclamation that does not support Global Warming, Organic foods, or free range meats, is always met with a severe, and immediate backlash, well in excess of anything resembling rational thought. Seriously guys, why do you care if anyone else thinks Organics is better or worse, unless it means more to you than simple food? I hate Lima beans, and you don’t care, so why do you care if I think Organics are a rip off?

    Organic foods are no better than non-organic foods, but the people who pay through the nose to get it WANT it to be better, so THEY will be better, and attacking that premise is equivalent to attacking THEM (Hence the hysteria).

    Additionally, NO ONE is taking a look at what might be WORSE about organics, than non-organic produce, etc.

    I was inclined to try planting potatoes one summer, and since non-organic potatoes have a treatment to prevent them from sprouting, I purchased a bag of Organic potatoes, to chop up in my garden, so I’d get the kind of potatoes I wanted.

    They did sprout, but I didn’t get any potatoes. I DID Get the BLIGHT, though! Those Organic potatoes were covered with it, but I’d never seen it before in my non-organic potatoes, so I didn’t know it was an issue, until it was too late. WAY too late!

    My entire garden had to be destroyed, as it was all infected (as were a lot of my non-food plants!). I lived in that house for several years after, and never was able to plant a garden again, because every time I tried, it got the blight! Thank You organic potatoes!

    How many people are eating blighted produce, because the farmers won’t use any chemicals to defeat the blight, or other food issues? I grew up in an area where all our produce was home grown, or from apple trees with no chemicals treating them. All my apples were full of worms, and I can assure you, I’ll gladly take a bit of chemicals, rather than eating the blight & worms – and paying MORE for the privilege.

    Let’s look into that, then talk about what is better about Organics!

  31. J Wolff Says:

    This is no study at all. I fail to see why anyone is talking about this completely inconclusive bunch of nonsense. We’ve known forever that there may be no difference in nutrient value w/ organics. Notice that when it came to the REAL issue – chemical exposure and whether THAT is unhealthy, there were no conclusions. That was outside the scope of the study.

    So, this study simply confirms what we already thought, so if anyone had been “duped” by believing organics had more nutrients, then they weren’t paying attention. Ryan Sutton has it right when he says above that there are many other reasons to buy organic. Let’s talk about Genetically Modified crops, about which a study came out three days ago with awful photos of the huge tumors that grew in rats who ate GM foods sprayed with Roundup at the levels comparable with what we eat in conventional produce. THIS is the issue, not whether there are more vitamins in an organic tomato. This is a major reason to buy organic – to avoid GM foods with copious amounts of pesticides all over them.

  32. Bevan Says:

    Lush cosmetics is a bit enevxsipe, but worth every penny!The bubble bars last a long time if you have jets in your tub. just use a quarter of one and puff them up with the jets for 4-5 minutes! i love big blue bath bomb! the seaweed is so detoxifying!Lush is such a good store as far as enviroment is concerned. They barley use packaging, and most products are vegan. If you use a solid shampoo bar it lasts longer then a bottle of shampoo and is better for the enviroment. and even if you do buy the shampoo there you can bring it back for recycling!Yay lush! =]

  33. Elizabeth Lee Says:

    As innovative as Stanford University would like to portray itself to be,your studies are going down the wrong path. Organic should be predominant in today food chain more than ever. Stanford research claim no perceptible difference between organic and non organic foods? Non organic foods have chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides applied to them. intuitively we realize that these products end up in our food chain, soils and water supply. The long term studies the French scientist released determine health hazards associated to the consumption of GMOS.

    The more organic nutrients we put into our soils the more we will benefit from the harvest and protect our water tables. Monsanto believes the more they chemically use roundup to doses plants that GMO insertion of exotic DNA snippets into the target seed adding a new property to a plant assisting the plant withstanding pesticides in the development, does not reduces the quality and nutritional value and is not introducing toxins in to the food chain. The scientific research on what the outcome on the altered productions of the corn and soy to name a few, is limited in the United States. Where research in France is seriously taking it to a level of health hazardous. The nutritional value is not being research by Stanford on the ongoing intake of GMOs in the human body and the relationship of tumors and cancer links. Stanford is innovative and should have a better understanding that GMOs are not Organic and Organic Produce is organic and of greater nutritional value in the long term health of the public.

    It is my understanding that Monsanto Headquarters has organic food for their employes. Stanford has a organic cafeteria.

  34. Peter Spanos Says:

    Congratulations on the excellent Stanford meta-analysis. This study simply re-iterates what was already known:

    and I find that the findings are aptly summarized by Dr. Novella in his excellent post on the SBM site

    Congratulations once again.


Please read our comments policy before posting

Stanford Medicine Resources: