| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: Another Lancet study on Iraq debunked. |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.
Iraq Body Count says there is �considerable cause for scepticism� and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.
One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of �main street bias� � that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that �there was no main street bias� and later amended their reply to �no evidence of a main street bias�.
Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word �casualties� to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the �three-to-one rule� � the idea that for every death, there are three injuries � there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.
�The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,� contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. �They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.� The paper had �no scientific standing�. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? �No.�
If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar. He says: �I believe this paper was very thoroughly reviewed. Every piece of work we publish is criticised � and quite rightly too. No research is perfect. The best we can do is make sure we have as open, transparent and honest a debate as we can. Then we'll get as close to the truth as possible. That is why I was so disappointed many politicians rejected the findings of this paper before really thinking through the issues.� |
| Quote: |
Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: �Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates.�
Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: �I�m sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don�t see how they could have done the study in the way they describe.�
Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews �took about 20 minutes�. The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : �I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don�t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can�t rattle off basic information suggests they either don�t know or they don�t care.� |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Lancet figures seem high, but BodyCount and official estimates are conservative by their very thorough nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And the point is? If the figure falls somewhere between the Lancet and Bodycount's figure, is that then acceptable somehow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaganath69 wrote: |
| And the point is? |
That he'll be long dead and cold in his grave before he admits that the war in Iraq was a huge costly pile of crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| jaganath69 wrote: |
| And the point is? |
That he'll be long dead and cold in his grave before he admits that the war in Iraq was a huge costly pile of crap. |
Even that is an understatement, on both counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess they were better off under Saddam....
Maybe the point is that the Lancet study is way off..It shows how far people will go overboard, even when trying to be objective.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
The point is, people are claiming the Lancet study was way off. Even if it is, so is the official count. 100,000 or 500,000, does it make ANY practical, moral or ethical difference? Does it change the equation in any way? No. Pulling this out of one's arse every so often serves nothing and nobody.
It's a red herring: Lancet was wrong!! Only 150,00 have been killed!! The whole anti-war campaign is bogus because the Lancet study was wrong!!
Christ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's only a red herring because it doesn't matter to you...It makes a big difference to others because it amounts to ant-war PROPOGANDA on a large scale.... Also Iraqi body count puts the numbers at a max of around 63,000..that is a significant number...interesting how 500,000 is just about the same..I get the feeling that Iraqi lives really don't matter...just so long the I hate Bush feeling can continue to grow and be fed.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| It's only a red herring because it doesn't matter to you...It makes a big difference to others because it amounts to ant-war PROPOGANDA on a large scale.... Also Iraqi body count puts the numbers at a max of around 63,000..that is a significant number...interesting how 500,000 is just about the same..I get the feeling that Iraqi lives really don't matter...just so long the I hate Bush feeling can continue to grow and be fed.... |
The post with the most truthfulness to be posted around here in a very long time. I will hate the eeeeeevil Bushie even if I have to lie to do it. Cindy Sheehan is hardly alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The point is, people are claiming the Lancet study was way off. Even if it is, so is the official count. 100,000 or 500,000, does it make ANY practical, moral or ethical difference? Does it change the equation in any way? No. Pulling this out of one's arse every so often serves nothing and | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
