If a company featured an analogous story on their corporate Web site, there would probably be a reason, and one of the likely ones is to promote positive perceptions of the company.

Are you playing devil's advocate? Or do you think the meat of the comment is invalid? Or do you want to derail thought and discussion on the topic?

I am not trying to derail. I am just pointing out the fact that you have no convincing evidence to claim what you are stating.

To me it reads as, "MKULTRA had elements that were universally recognized as being ethically unsound, so we can't talk about it in a neutral light at all".

I think this is a terrible dichomatic way of thinking that supplants neutral interpretation.

Furthermore, I think an appeal to the reputation of the source of information equates to an ad hominem attack and presents no substantive argument against said information.