Certainly it is possible, and may have happened on many occasions, that the methodology behind a statistic is flawed, imperfect beyond what is “reasonable,” but, as far as I know, it is usually from an extrapolation using a sampling method tested frequently for approximate accuracy before beginning regular use as a means toward a reputable statistic.

Also, his story about the geneticist whom must worry about the influence of his funding financier, its bias and self interest, is more a statement on the nature of some persons to be “greedy” or “unethically political, and racist” over the advancement of science. It is a suggestion of selfishness that he does not prove exists in the company in question. While the basis he states for the ceasing of funds is possible, I doubt it can be said to be the only one. Unless they are refuted as likely possibilites and shown as selfish in and of themselves (subjective), his argument is incomplete.

He appears to be saying, “Corporations are greedy and fund research solely for the advancement of themselves, and this is an absolute that affects all companies whether or not they have ties to examples of actual corrupt corporations.”

Ironically, he would then be using an unquantified sample to imply an absolute fact.

Or I just said a load of nonsense.