On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:43:12 -0700, Warren Ockrassa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >  As far as I know The Lancet study remains the only scientific study
> > into deaths so until more studies have been done we really have no way
> > of knowing what an accurate figure is.
> 
> Kaplan mentioned the IBC materials, which are based in much less
> theoretical means than epidemiology (which, as noted, is not the same
> as war).

 On this point Juan Cole mentions that:

"The methodology of this study is very tight, but it does involve
extrapolating from a small number and so could easily be substantially
incorrect. But the methodology also is standard in such situations and
was used in Bosnia and Kosovo."

 He goes on to say:

"I think the results are probably an exaggeration. But they can't be
so radically far off that the 16,000 deaths previously estimated can
still be viewed as valid. I'd say we have to now revise the number up
to at least many tens of thousand--which anyway makes sense. The
16,000 estimate comes from counting all deaths reported in the Western
press, which everyone always knew was only a fraction of the true
total. (I see deaths reported in al-Zaman every day that don't show up
in the Western wire services)."

 http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109902941049326214

 Martin
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to