The Lancet Iraqi Study - Utter Garbage?

Gabbagoo isn't the only one with this comprehension problem on this thread.

 

JR - well if the Guardian says it then it must be true because we all know that the Guardian is bias free and has no political agenda. [sarcasm off]

In the 18 months before the invasion - CNN had to watch it's P's and Q's when reporting from Baghdad because they had "minders", Saddam Hussein was running 100% favorable in the polls and I'm sure that anyone the folks from the Lancet interviewed were free to tell the truth without worrying that they would be hauled off to prison along with the rest of their family if they gave answers which were not acceptable to Saddam or his henchmen.

Excuse me if I find little confidence in the pre-war numbers and even less confidence in the latest skewered studies from the "pretending we have no agenda" Lancet.

 

OK, Chris.
Outside of US domestic political considerations, why was this method considered valid by everyone when it was used in the Congo, and in Darfur, but not in Iraq?

 

Chris

That's funny. As if all the sources you constantly pull out of your ass don't have a political agenda.

 

FB - what do you mean by valid? By valid do you mean best possible means available? Best guess? (Because with a +/- of 25% it is not a study - its a guess.) For the Iraqi study there are morgues and death certificates that could be cross referenced to validate the numbers presented but this was not the case in the Lancet study.

JR - if you don't trust my sources then stop bothering me about providing links. Keep a closed mind - I don't care. Just don't waste my time.

 

Ah, but Chris, you didn't address the issues in my link.

The methodology has been proven valid by professional statisticians. What have you got? Anecdotal evidence based on media reports. Hardly scientific.

Your claim--unsubstantiated by any reliable or believable source--that this study is prima facie invalid doesn't make it so because you keep repeating it.

 

I love Chris's "agenda" refrain coming from the side of the spectrum that not only out-agendas every political group in the free world, uses lies and deception to prop it up.

It reminds me of the person who doesn't trust anybody because basically they're untrustworthy.

 

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy basically said that the numbers from the Lancet study were not to be trusted. Of course Harvard is known to be very pro-Bush and pro-war.

The numbers from most media reports come from verified deaths. Whereas the people who did the Lancet study did not see one corpse or one death certificate in compiling their numbers but you have the temerity to call the numbers I quote anecdotal? Please.

 

Chris, read the link I provide again. Bases on known statisticial methodology, the Lancet study is accurate.

Media "reports" don't constitute any scientific valididty when you're talking about statistical evidence.

Go take a night course in stats and get back to me.

 

Based upon statistical evidence - A-Rod was perhaps the second most valuable member of the New York Yankees this season and should be credited for much of their success.

 

That seems relevant and analagous. I guess Chris wins.

 

The Arizona Cardinals beat the Chicago Bears last night 26-21 (this score has a +/- margin of error of 25%)