This is a perfect example of the spin machine in action. The Lancet's study was scientifically conducted versus this - which is nothing more than a bunch of unsupported words strung together by supporters of "we don't do body counts" to confuse the matter.
Pertaining to the only "fact" in your reference: "First, the normal death rate of the Iraqi population would leave about 550,000 dead since early 2003", here's a summary of the Lancet's findings, which DOES take into account the normal death rate: "... Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4.3-7.1), compared with 13.3 per 1000 people per year (10.9-16.1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979-942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369-793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire." Since you're so interested in the goings-on, why not read the entire report? It's at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fu lltext Requires simple registration. Bill > http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20061016.aspx > > October 16, 2006: The British medical journal, The > Lancet, has again turned over its pages to political > propaganda pretending to be science. The latest report > claims that a very flawed survey of the Iraqi > population proves that military and terrorist > operations have killed over 600,000 Iraqis in the past > three years. Several things should be noted. First, > the normal death rate of the Iraqi population would > leave about 550,000 dead since early 2003. Second, the > terrorist, and counter-terrorist, violence in Iraq is largely > restricted to four of the 18 provinces. About a third of the > population is involved, mainly because Baghdad is a principal > battleground. But the Lancet study implies that a third of > the population has suffered these losses, which means over > seven percent of the people living in that area would have > died since 2003. That's a lot of bodies. Where are they? > Where are the standards required for statistics and data in a > study like this? No matter, the Lancet did a similar study in > 2004, just before the U.S. presidential elections. That study > was eventually discredited, just as the recent one will be. > The editors of The Lancet know that their statistical and > data misdeeds will not be completely known, and condemned, > for several months. Apparently, The Lancet believes they can > get away with this sort of thing, because they do not run > these kinds of deceptions with their regular medical > material. That's great from a medical point of view, rather > less appealing from a moral standpoint. > > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
