The Lancet Iraqi Study - Utter Garbage?

The guy from Harvard said, given that the survey was conducted under wartime, it was adequate and the BEST POSSIBLE under the circumstances

You used the word "untrustworthy"--which he never said.

 

He said "the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country."

He directly called into question how they conducted the study and how they came to their numbers.

 

Uh, no it isn't.

Because you never see a story like that. I wish we did see as few as 15-20 dying a day.

Have you even read the news this year?

100 violent deaths a day is the "norm" . . . and that's a conservative estimate because those are just immediate body counts in morgues from day to day. Doesn't count all the bodies that are buried or missing or never found or just never make it to the morgue. And it doesn't account for the fact that there really isn't a functioning governmental agency to make an effort to account for the daily deaths.

 

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was "the best of what you can expect in a war zone."

 

But here's the rub.

The Lancet study expressly says that 92% of the deaths they counted had death certificates. They are saying that a government agency issued a death certificate but their numbers can't be backed up by the numbers from the government agencies.

It stinks - yet hardened journalist just accept the numbers without question.

This discussion is turning into trying to argue communism against avowed lefties. You point out that communism fails every where it has been tried but they counter with "but the principles behind communism are sound."

The numbers from the Lancet study defy common sense but the supporters counter with "but the methodology is sound."

Occam's razor here says that there aren't hundreds of thousands of missing corpses - there is just a poorly done "study" and that someone was lying about those death certificates.

 

Chris, you quote one guy who isn't totally sure about the results yet both FB & I have shown that the methodology has been proven reputable in the past and is reputable in this case. You don't have a methodology nor does IBC--at least one that has any credible scientific basis.

Arguing this with you is like arguing Intelligent Design with the loonie evangelicals. Sorry, you're out of your league in this one.

 

You post a link that extols that UNICEF uses the same methodology. I point out that UNICEF used that methodology on a study that said 60,000 children per year were dying in Iraq because of the sanctions. You ignore the numbers and move on your your next unctuous post. And then declare victory?

You saying "I'm out of my league" coupled with Fenian's old "arguing with your betters" is why people think of your ilk as elitist snobs.

The numbers make no sense yet you quibble about methodology. THEY SAID 92% OF THE REPORTED DECEASED HAD DEATH CERTIFICATES BUT THAT NUMBER WAS OFF BY A FACTOR OF 10-1 WHEN COMPARED AGAINST OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Explain that discrepency in a way that doesn't make it sound like the Lancet was just pulling numbers out of their collective asses and then we can talk.

 

You don't think it makes a difference to the 400,000? You might hang up and listen, but I doubt you'll comprehend.

 

So when I keep seeing those headlines "20 dead in bloody day in Iraq" in the NYT or WP, they're downgrading the numbers because they're in the hip pocket of the administration?

 

Tony, please.

Adults were talking.

 

Why certainly! Let's give them all paintball rifles!

 

War is war. If the nice, militant but peaceloving Iraqis cared about their own people, there'd be about 400,000 less dead. Tribals kill tribals.