about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,370 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the second variable is Asthma prevalence in American children.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As cotton in Mississippi became less genetically modified, it led to the unintentional creation of mini cotton bales that kids were using as pillows, leading to overall better respiratory health. Remember, when it comes to unconventional asthma remedies, sometimes the fabric of our solutions is a little bit fuzzy!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Cute cartoon ] Generate an image of a serene Mississippi cotton field, featuring adorable children at play. The cartoon should showcase the fluffy white cotton plants swaying gently in the breeze, with the air feeling clear and clean. The children should be depicted as joyfully playing outside, portraying a sense of relief from asthma symptoms due to the healthy, pollen-free environment. The image should evoke a feeling of natural, refreshing breaths of clean air for children's respiratory health. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Vaporwave Cute cartoon Symbolism Macabre Low poly
ChatGPT: Cute cartoon

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children, in the following situation: The decrease in GMO use in Mississippi cotton led to less "airy" cotton, which meant fewer "pollen" particles in the air. This "seeded" a reduction in allergens that could "bale" kids up with asthma. With less genetic modification, it was like a breath of fresh air for the young'uns across the nation, "cotton" down on their asthma symptoms. It's like the whole situation was "unraveling" in the best way possible for these kids' respiratory health. It seems like when it comes to managing asthma, sometimes you just have to "thread" lightly and allow nature to do its thing.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Imagine a peaceful Mississippi cotton field with fluffy white cotton plants swaying in the breeze. The air feels clearer as the cotton plants release fewer pollen particles. In the distance, joyful children play outside without any signs of asthma symptoms. The air feels light and clean, providing relief for children all across the nation. It's a natural, refreshing breath of fresh air for their respiratory health.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Cute cartoon ] and depicting this scene: Imagine a peaceful Mississippi cotton field with fluffy white cotton plants swaying in the breeze. The air feels clearer as the cotton plants release fewer pollen particles. In the distance, joyful children play outside without any signs of asthma symptoms. The air feels light and clean, providing relief for children all across the nation. It's a natural, refreshing breath of fresh air for their respiratory health. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Cute cartoon ] Generate an image of a serene Mississippi cotton field, featuring adorable children at play. The cartoon should showcase the fluffy white cotton plants swaying gently in the breeze, with the air feeling clear and clean. The children should be depicted as joyfully playing outside, portraying a sense of relief from asthma symptoms due to the healthy, pollen-free environment. The image should evoke a feeling of natural, refreshing breaths of clean air for children's respiratory health.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in GMO use in cotton in Mississippi caused Asthma prevalence in American children to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

The Journal of Ecological Entanglements

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01 for 2003 to 2019.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In recent years, the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked discussions as heated as a fresh batch of cottonseed oil. One particular area of interest is the use of GMO cotton and its potential impact on public health, specifically in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma in American children. As we wade through the fields of data and the murky depths of statistical analysis, it's important to keep a sense of humor – after all, who doesn't love a good cotton-related pun?

The adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi has seen a ginning up of controversy, with proponents touting its potential for increased yields and resistance to pests, while critics voice concerns about unintended consequences on both human health and the environment. It’s a debate as complex as the weaving process itself, but just like a well-knit sweater, we must take a comprehensive look at all the threads of evidence.

Our study aims to unravel the potential link between the usage of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma among American children. It's a tall order, but then again, so is picking cotton – they don't call it a "cash crop" for nothing! Through the analysis of extensive data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics, we seek to shed light on whether there's more to the air than just cotton pollen – perhaps a whiff of respiratory concern.

As we delve into the bolls and bales of information, it's important to recognize the potential significance of our findings in the broader context of GMO usage and public health. This study ventures into murky territory, but let's not get ourselves in a "bale" of confusion – we have a lint-free sense of direction.

So, grab your inhalers and your sense of humor as we embark on this pollen-laden journey. With robust evidence and a wry smile, this research aims to answer the pressing question: could GMO cotton be causing a stir in the respiratory health of American children, or are we just "cotton-picking" at straws?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked discussions as heated as a fresh batch of cottonseed oil. One particular area of interest is the use of GMO cotton and its potential impact on public health, specifically in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma in American children. As we wade through the fields of data and the murky depths of statistical analysis, it's important to keep a sense of humor – after all, who doesn't love a good cotton-related pun?
The adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi has seen a ginning up of controversy, with proponents touting its potential for increased yields and resistance to pests, while critics voice concerns about unintended consequences on both human health and the environment. It’s a debate as complex as the weaving process itself, but just like a well-knit sweater, we must take a comprehensive look at all the threads of evidence.
Our study aims to unravel the potential link between the usage of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma among American children. It's a tall order, but then again, so is picking cotton – they don't call it a "cash crop" for nothing! Through the analysis of extensive data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics, we seek to shed light on whether there's more to the air than just cotton pollen – perhaps a whiff of respiratory concern.
As we delve into the bolls and bales of information, it's important to recognize the potential significance of our findings in the broader context of GMO usage and public health. This study ventures into murky territory, but let's not get ourselves in a "bale" of confusion – we have a lint-free sense of direction.
So, grab your inhalers and your sense of humor as we embark on this pollen-laden journey. With robust evidence and a wry smile, this research aims to answer the pressing question: could GMO cotton be causing a stir in the respiratory health of American children, or are we just "cotton-picking" at straws?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Numerous studies have attempted to unravel the mysteries of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their potential impacts on public health. In "Smith et al.," the authors find lorem and ipsum. Similarly, "Doe" explores the relationship between GMO usage and public health outcomes, shedding light on the complexities of this issue. On a lighter note, it's like trying to unravel a ball of yarn without a playful kitten nearby - tricky business, indeed!

Turning the pages to more specific research, "Jones" examines the adoption of GMO cotton in agricultural practices. The findings indicate the widespread utilization of GMO cotton in states like Mississippi, raising points of interest as numerous as the threads of a well-made cotton shirt. And speaking of shirts, if the ghost of Elvis Presley starts serenading you with "Heartbreak Hotel," perhaps it's time to put that GMO cotton under the microscope.

As we don our academic caps and dig deeper into the implications of GMO cotton, it's essential to take a peek at the non-fiction publications on this subject. "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey M. Smith and "Food, Inc." by Peter Pringle provide thought-provoking insights into the world of genetically modified crops. But let's not forget about the fictional side of things. Who knows, maybe Percy Jackson had some pertinent insights on the effects of GMO cotton, hidden somewhere in "The Lightning Thief."

But wait, there's social media too! An intriguing tweet by @GMOs_R_Us reads, "GMO cotton: a thread of controversy or just a lot of fluff?" It seems that even the Twittersphere is abuzz (or should we say a-fluff?) with discussions about the potential impacts of GMO cotton on public health.

In the realm of academia, serious research often demands a lighthearted approach. "Cotton" be serious all the time, right? Keep your inhalers close, and your jokes closer, as we unearth the "punny" mysteries of GMO cotton's impact on the respiratory health of American children.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 2019

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked discussions as heated as a fresh batch of cottonseed oil. One particular area of interest is the use of GMO cotton and its potential impact on public health, specifically in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma in American children. As we wade through the fields of data and the murky depths of statistical analysis, it's important to keep a sense of humor – after all, who doesn't love a good cotton-related pun?
The adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi has seen a ginning up of controversy, with proponents touting its potential for increased yields and resistance to pests, while critics voice concerns about unintended consequences on both human health and the environment. It’s a debate as complex as the weaving process itself, but just like a well-knit sweater, we must take a comprehensive look at all the threads of evidence.
Our study aims to unravel the potential link between the usage of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma among American children. It's a tall order, but then again, so is picking cotton – they don't call it a "cash crop" for nothing! Through the analysis of extensive data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics, we seek to shed light on whether there's more to the air than just cotton pollen – perhaps a whiff of respiratory concern.
As we delve into the bolls and bales of information, it's important to recognize the potential significance of our findings in the broader context of GMO usage and public health. This study ventures into murky territory, but let's not get ourselves in a "bale" of confusion – we have a lint-free sense of direction.
So, grab your inhalers and your sense of humor as we embark on this pollen-laden journey. With robust evidence and a wry smile, this research aims to answer the pressing question: could GMO cotton be causing a stir in the respiratory health of American children, or are we just "cotton-picking" at straws?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

**[[METHODOLOGY]]**

*Sampling and Data Collection:*
Our research team employed a data collection strategy that was as meticulous as a fine-toothed comb in the cotton fields. We gathered information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, spanning the years 2003 to 2019. The age range of the children included in the study ranged from 0 to 17 years old, encompassing the formative years of both cotton growth and childhood respiratory health. We wanted to make sure our data was as fresh and pure as a field of newly sprouted cotton – and our efforts "paid off" handsomely.

*Variable Selection and Statistical Analysis:*
Our analysis involved the utilization of various statistical methods, including correlation analysis and regression models. We scrutinized the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi as our independent variable, while the prevalence of asthma in American children served as our dependent variable. The correlation coefficient and p-value were calculated to determine the strength and significance of the relationship, and let me tell you, the results were nothing to sneeze at – except, perhaps, for those with sensitive respiratory systems!

*Control Variables:*
In order to avoid getting entangled in a web of confounding factors, we took several control variables into consideration. These included variables such as air pollution levels, socioeconomic status, and access to healthcare services. We didn't want anything "lint-ering" in our results that could throw off the accuracy of the findings!

*Geospatial Analysis:*
To further explore the spatial dimension of our investigation, we conducted geospatial analysis using geographical information systems (GIS). This allowed us to map out the distribution of GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and overlay it with asthma prevalence rates across different regions. It was like connecting the dots, but with cotton fields and inhalers instead of crayons. And let's not forget, this research had us "ginned up" with excitement!

*Ethical Considerations:*
In conducting this research, we adhered to the highest ethical standards, ensuring that the privacy and confidentiality of all individuals included in the datasets were maintained. We handled the data with care and consideration, just like a delicately spun cotton thread – because in the world of research, integrity should always be in "seam-ply" supply!

Now, if only we could come up with a way to genetically modify cotton to produce anti-allergy cotton candy, we might have a solution to at least one aspect of this cotton-related dilemma!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.8628831, r-squared of 0.7445672, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In recent years, the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked discussions as heated as a fresh batch of cottonseed oil. One particular area of interest is the use of GMO cotton and its potential impact on public health, specifically in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma in American children. As we wade through the fields of data and the murky depths of statistical analysis, it's important to keep a sense of humor – after all, who doesn't love a good cotton-related pun?
The adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi has seen a ginning up of controversy, with proponents touting its potential for increased yields and resistance to pests, while critics voice concerns about unintended consequences on both human health and the environment. It’s a debate as complex as the weaving process itself, but just like a well-knit sweater, we must take a comprehensive look at all the threads of evidence.
Our study aims to unravel the potential link between the usage of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma among American children. It's a tall order, but then again, so is picking cotton – they don't call it a "cash crop" for nothing! Through the analysis of extensive data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics, we seek to shed light on whether there's more to the air than just cotton pollen – perhaps a whiff of respiratory concern.
As we delve into the bolls and bales of information, it's important to recognize the potential significance of our findings in the broader context of GMO usage and public health. This study ventures into murky territory, but let's not get ourselves in a "bale" of confusion – we have a lint-free sense of direction.
So, grab your inhalers and your sense of humor as we embark on this pollen-laden journey. With robust evidence and a wry smile, this research aims to answer the pressing question: could GMO cotton be causing a stir in the respiratory health of American children, or are we just "cotton-picking" at straws?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The fruitful collaboration between agriculture, health, and statistics has borne nectar in the form of our research findings. We discovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8628831, signifying a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the heightened prevalence of asthma among American children. The likelihood of this association occurring by chance is less than 1 in 100, or shall we say, as rare as finding a non-GMO cotton ball in a field of engineered fluff!

In addition to the correlation coefficient, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.7445672. This statistic indicates that a whopping 74.46% of the variability in asthma prevalence among American children can be explained by the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi. It's almost as if the cotton fields are whispering secrets to the air, guiding the pollen straight to the lungs of unsuspecting passersby. Nature truly is a comedian, albeit with a bit of a wheezy sense of humor!

The scatterplot in Fig. 1 paints a picture worth a thousand words, illustrating the strong positive association between the prevalence of asthma in American children and the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi. The data points cling to the trend line like lint on black pants, leaving no room for doubt about the connection between these seemingly disparate phenomena. It's as clear as a sunny day in the cotton fields – well, maybe with a bit of a pollen haze for good measure.

In light of these findings, it seems that GMO cotton may not only be engineered for resistance to pests but also inadvertently weaving a fabric of respiratory distress in the lives of American children. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face – or should we say, as plain as the cotton on your T-shirt!

Our results imply that the potential impact of GMOs on public health stretches far beyond the fields of Mississippi, echoing through the homes and hospitals of families nationwide. It's a revelation as monumental as the invention of the cotton gin itself, unveiling the complex interplay between agriculture and respiratory well-being. It seems we've stumbled upon a "pollen paradox" of sorts, where the seeds of progress may sow the grains of respiratory peril.

In conclusion, our research presents a compelling case for further exploration of the relationship between GMO cotton and asthma prevalence in American children. The implications of this study extend into the "fiber" of public health discourse, prompting a more nuanced consideration of the respiratory effects of GMO usage. As we unravel this thread of inquiry, let's not forget to "bale" out any opposition with a healthy dose of scientific rigor and, perhaps, a well-timed dad joke or two. Research can be serious business, but it never hurts to "cotton" on to some levity along the way!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous studies have attempted to unravel the mysteries of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their potential impacts on public health. In "Smith et al.," the authors find lorem and ipsum. Similarly, "Doe" explores the relationship between GMO usage and public health outcomes, shedding light on the complexities of this issue. On a lighter note, it's like trying to unravel a ball of yarn without a playful kitten nearby - tricky business, indeed!
Turning the pages to more specific research, "Jones" examines the adoption of GMO cotton in agricultural practices. The findings indicate the widespread utilization of GMO cotton in states like Mississippi, raising points of interest as numerous as the threads of a well-made cotton shirt. And speaking of shirts, if the ghost of Elvis Presley starts serenading you with "Heartbreak Hotel," perhaps it's time to put that GMO cotton under the microscope.
As we don our academic caps and dig deeper into the implications of GMO cotton, it's essential to take a peek at the non-fiction publications on this subject. "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey M. Smith and "Food, Inc." by Peter Pringle provide thought-provoking insights into the world of genetically modified crops. But let's not forget about the fictional side of things. Who knows, maybe Percy Jackson had some pertinent insights on the effects of GMO cotton, hidden somewhere in "The Lightning Thief."
But wait, there's social media too! An intriguing tweet by @GMOs_R_Us reads, "GMO cotton: a thread of controversy or just a lot of fluff?" It seems that even the Twittersphere is abuzz (or should we say a-fluff?) with discussions about the potential impacts of GMO cotton on public health.
In the realm of academia, serious research often demands a lighthearted approach. "Cotton" be serious all the time, right? Keep your inhalers close, and your jokes closer, as we unearth the "punny" mysteries of GMO cotton's impact on the respiratory health of American children.

[[RESULTS]]
The fruitful collaboration between agriculture, health, and statistics has borne nectar in the form of our research findings. We discovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8628831, signifying a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the heightened prevalence of asthma among American children. The likelihood of this association occurring by chance is less than 1 in 100, or shall we say, as rare as finding a non-GMO cotton ball in a field of engineered fluff!
In addition to the correlation coefficient, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.7445672. This statistic indicates that a whopping 74.46% of the variability in asthma prevalence among American children can be explained by the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi. It's almost as if the cotton fields are whispering secrets to the air, guiding the pollen straight to the lungs of unsuspecting passersby. Nature truly is a comedian, albeit with a bit of a wheezy sense of humor!
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 paints a picture worth a thousand words, illustrating the strong positive association between the prevalence of asthma in American children and the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi. The data points cling to the trend line like lint on black pants, leaving no room for doubt about the connection between these seemingly disparate phenomena. It's as clear as a sunny day in the cotton fields – well, maybe with a bit of a pollen haze for good measure.
In light of these findings, it seems that GMO cotton may not only be engineered for resistance to pests but also inadvertently weaving a fabric of respiratory distress in the lives of American children. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face – or should we say, as plain as the cotton on your T-shirt!
Our results imply that the potential impact of GMOs on public health stretches far beyond the fields of Mississippi, echoing through the homes and hospitals of families nationwide. It's a revelation as monumental as the invention of the cotton gin itself, unveiling the complex interplay between agriculture and respiratory well-being. It seems we've stumbled upon a "pollen paradox" of sorts, where the seeds of progress may sow the grains of respiratory peril.
In conclusion, our research presents a compelling case for further exploration of the relationship between GMO cotton and asthma prevalence in American children. The implications of this study extend into the "fiber" of public health discourse, prompting a more nuanced consideration of the respiratory effects of GMO usage. As we unravel this thread of inquiry, let's not forget to "bale" out any opposition with a healthy dose of scientific rigor and, perhaps, a well-timed dad joke or two. Research can be serious business, but it never hurts to "cotton" on to some levity along the way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study delved into the enigmatic world of GMO cotton and its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. The robust correlation coefficient we uncovered further bolsters the existing body of research that hints at a connection between GMO usage and public health outcomes. It seems that this cotton conundrum isn't just a bunch of fluff – it's a serious matter worthy of our attention, and perhaps a few giggles along the way.

Building upon the previous works of "Smith et al." and "Doe," our findings shine a spotlight on the intricate relationship between GMO cotton adoption and the rising prevalence of asthma in American children. The evidence is as clear as a crisp, freshly ironed shirt – much like the evidence that my dad's jokes are still funny (or at least he likes to think so)!

Our research aligns with "Jones's" exploration of GMO cotton adoption, highlighting the widespread use of genetically modified varieties in states like Mississippi. It's no small matter, akin to untangling a yarn ball without a playful kitten nearby – a bit of a "cotton"-eyed Joe situation, if you will. The correlation we discovered is strong, hinting at a deeper link between fields of GMO cotton and the gasps and wheezes of children across the United States.

The scatterplot in Figure 1 weaves a tale as compelling as any piece of literature, illustrating the poignant connection between asthma prevalence and the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi. It's like a yarn of evidence, spun with precision and care – though not without a few loose ends and the occasional tangle, much like the plot of a good dad joke!

Our results indicate that GMO cotton may inadvertently be sewing the seeds of respiratory distress in the lives of American children. The implications of this study extend beyond the scientific community and into the homes of families across the nation. It's a revelation as monumental as discovering that puns about cotton can actually be quite a "bale" of fun!

In the spirit of scientific rigor, our findings emphasize the need for further investigation into the potential impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. It's a pressing matter that demands attention, much like the pressing of a freshly picked cotton shirt. As we "thread" the needle of inquiry, let's not "lint-roll" over the gravity of the situation, but instead "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage on public health. And maybe crack a gentle dad joke or two along the way – because laughter is the best medicine, even when it comes to scientific discourse.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Asthma prevalence in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!

Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.

The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In recent years, the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked discussions as heated as a fresh batch of cottonseed oil. One particular area of interest is the use of GMO cotton and its potential impact on public health, specifically in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma in American children. As we wade through the fields of data and the murky depths of statistical analysis, it's important to keep a sense of humor – after all, who doesn't love a good cotton-related pun?
The adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi has seen a ginning up of controversy, with proponents touting its potential for increased yields and resistance to pests, while critics voice concerns about unintended consequences on both human health and the environment. It’s a debate as complex as the weaving process itself, but just like a well-knit sweater, we must take a comprehensive look at all the threads of evidence.
Our study aims to unravel the potential link between the usage of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma among American children. It's a tall order, but then again, so is picking cotton – they don't call it a "cash crop" for nothing! Through the analysis of extensive data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics, we seek to shed light on whether there's more to the air than just cotton pollen – perhaps a whiff of respiratory concern.
As we delve into the bolls and bales of information, it's important to recognize the potential significance of our findings in the broader context of GMO usage and public health. This study ventures into murky territory, but let's not get ourselves in a "bale" of confusion – we have a lint-free sense of direction.
So, grab your inhalers and your sense of humor as we embark on this pollen-laden journey. With robust evidence and a wry smile, this research aims to answer the pressing question: could GMO cotton be causing a stir in the respiratory health of American children, or are we just "cotton-picking" at straws?

[[RESULTS]]
The fruitful collaboration between agriculture, health, and statistics has borne nectar in the form of our research findings. We discovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8628831, signifying a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the heightened prevalence of asthma among American children. The likelihood of this association occurring by chance is less than 1 in 100, or shall we say, as rare as finding a non-GMO cotton ball in a field of engineered fluff!
In addition to the correlation coefficient, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.7445672. This statistic indicates that a whopping 74.46% of the variability in asthma prevalence among American children can be explained by the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi. It's almost as if the cotton fields are whispering secrets to the air, guiding the pollen straight to the lungs of unsuspecting passersby. Nature truly is a comedian, albeit with a bit of a wheezy sense of humor!
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 paints a picture worth a thousand words, illustrating the strong positive association between the prevalence of asthma in American children and the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi. The data points cling to the trend line like lint on black pants, leaving no room for doubt about the connection between these seemingly disparate phenomena. It's as clear as a sunny day in the cotton fields – well, maybe with a bit of a pollen haze for good measure.
In light of these findings, it seems that GMO cotton may not only be engineered for resistance to pests but also inadvertently weaving a fabric of respiratory distress in the lives of American children. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face – or should we say, as plain as the cotton on your T-shirt!
Our results imply that the potential impact of GMOs on public health stretches far beyond the fields of Mississippi, echoing through the homes and hospitals of families nationwide. It's a revelation as monumental as the invention of the cotton gin itself, unveiling the complex interplay between agriculture and respiratory well-being. It seems we've stumbled upon a "pollen paradox" of sorts, where the seeds of progress may sow the grains of respiratory peril.
In conclusion, our research presents a compelling case for further exploration of the relationship between GMO cotton and asthma prevalence in American children. The implications of this study extend into the "fiber" of public health discourse, prompting a more nuanced consideration of the respiratory effects of GMO usage. As we unravel this thread of inquiry, let's not forget to "bale" out any opposition with a healthy dose of scientific rigor and, perhaps, a well-timed dad joke or two. Research can be serious business, but it never hurts to "cotton" on to some levity along the way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we bring this whirlwind of research to a close, it's clear that the featherweight fluff of GMO cotton has some heavyweight implications for the respiratory well-being of American children. Our findings have sewn together a compelling narrative, leaving no room for "loose threads" in the argument that GMO cotton may be sowing the seeds of wheezy mischief in the fabric of public health.

Now, for the moment you've all been waiting for – the dad jokes! Why did the GMO cotton break up with its date? Because it wanted some-“boll”-y space! And why don't GMO cotton plants ever get lost? Because they're always "boll-ding" in the right direction!

But in all seriousness – or should I say, cotton-ness – let’s not "count the threads" before they're woven! Our study underlines the need for more comprehensive research on the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. So, could GMO cotton be a "breath of fresh air," or are we in for a "seedy" situation? It seems the "fabric" of this debate is yet to be fully unraveled.

In the wispy fog of GMO controversy, one thing is clear: the a-“stamen”-ing potential impact of genetically modified cotton on asthma prevalence in American children. But fear not, dear readers, for this study puts a sturdy "bale" underneath the call for continued investigation into this pressing issue.

In essence, this research represents the "staple" of a burgeoning field of inquiry – and with that, I argue that no further "spinning" of data is needed. It's time to "weave" this conclusion into the annals of scientific discovery and move on to other pressing topics. As the saying goes, "The perfect cotton-related dad joke isn't written, it's "ginned up," and it's high time to "harvest" these findings and let them "blossom" in the fertile soil of academic literature. Thank you, and remember, don't take life too seriously – after all, it's just a bunch of genetically modified threads!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Entanglements


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Child Health


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Pollen Paradox: Investigating the Link Between GMO Cotton and Asthma in American Children with an abstract of The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on public health has been a topic of considerable debate. In this study, we examine the relationship between the utilization of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the prevalence of asthma in American children through an analysis of data from the USDA and National Center for Health Statistics. As we delve into the cotton fields and inhalers, let's not forget to gin up some laughter for this cotton-pickin' research!
Our findings reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8628831 and p < 0.01, covering the period from 2003 to 2019. This indicates a robust relationship between the adoption of GMO cotton in Mississippi and the rise in asthma prevalence among American children. It seems that the cultivation of GMO cotton may not only yield bountiful harvests but also serve as a fertile ground for wheezy mischief.
The implications of this study extend beyond the fields, and into the homes of families across the nation. While we don't aim to "lint-roll over" any opposing views, the evidence suggests that there's more to the fabric of GMO cotton's impact than meets the eye – or a high thread-count. With the potential risks to respiratory health, it's crucial to "weave" together a comprehensive understanding of the implications of GMO usage, not just for cotton, but for other genetically modified crops as well.
In conclusion, our research sheds light on the need for further investigation into the impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. This study may just be the "thread" that unravels some longstanding mysteries, but let's remember not to "needle" anyone with our findings – unless they're really in "stitches" about the subject!

ChatGPT:

GMO cotton, asthma prevalence, American children, Mississippi, USDA data, National Center for Health Statistics, correlation coefficient, genetically modified organisms, respiratory health, genetically modified crops, public health, GMO usage, cotton cultivation, asthma risk, GMO impact, children's health, GMO cotton adoption, cotton farming, respiratory diseases, GMO research, asthma in children, GMO cotton and respiratory health.

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

GMO use in cotton in Mississippi
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Mississippi that is genetically modified to be insect-resistant (Bt), but not herbicide-tolerant (HT)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Mississippi

Asthma prevalence in American children
Detailed data title: Percent of children 0-4 years old in the US who have asthma
Source: National Center for Health Statistics
See what else correlates with Asthma prevalence in American children

Correlation r = 0.8628831 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.7445672 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Asthma prevalence in American children) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Mississippi) over the 17 years from 2003 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 8.3E-6. 0.0000082580851742334970000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.86 in 0.00083% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 121,093 random variables You don't actually need 121 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 16 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 16 because we have two variables measured over a period of 17 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.65, 0.95 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
GMO use in cotton in Mississippi (GMO cotton %)1516147161914121592213821
Asthma prevalence in American children (Percent of children)5.95.66.85.86.86.26.366.95.44.24.34.73.84.43.82.6




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([15,16,14,7,16,19,14,12,15,9,2,2,1,3,8,2,1,])
array_2 = np.array([5.9,5.6,6.8,5.8,6.8,6.2,6.3,6,6.9,5.4,4.2,4.3,4.7,3.8,4.4,3.8,2.6,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Mississippi"
array_2_name = "Asthma prevalence in American children"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 2370 · Black Variable ID: 772 · Red Variable ID: 1134
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0