It does, actually. It's right up there with the New England Journal of Medecine. And the authors are from Johns Hopkins, also a highly respected academic institution.
"The paper was "extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited" and rushed into print "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq, Richard Horton, the journal's editor, wrote in an accompanying editorial." And they excluded Fallujah. I don't want to get deep enough into the details to decide what I in fact think, but the methods are defensible or Lancet would not have published the study. ::shrug:: >You may not know of the Lancet, but it is one of the top journals in the >world and has an impeccable reputation. > >Far better people than you have tried to discredit that research (including >the British government) without success. > >The incredible thing is that if you search the archives you will find that >this has been discussed on the list exhaustively before, do we have to keep >rehashing the same things? At least it's an increasingly small and desperate >band of people defending the indefensible. > >On 3/17/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200539 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
