Read my wall street journal rebuttal on the bad mathematics of the study. --- Bill Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
