So you show me where you have used this study to estimate the deaths in Iraq, and then you claim that my evidence proving it is false and that we 'don't know what's accurate'. You then wonder why I present facts against this study, which is obviously something quite close to your heart, because instead of debating the facts you're resorting to telling me I'm 'thick'.
Also, in my last post I questioned whether you defend the study or not. Thus my questions mark - I didn't accuse you of defending it, do I need to tell you to re-read things, or is your comprehension level adequate?
I'll start a thread shortly to completely debunk this Lancet study, for everyone else's benefit.
nice dodge. but typical of your lame techniques.
show me were i said the lancet study was accurate
show me where i was defending the lancet study
show me where i claimed your evidence was false
show me where this study is close to my heart
show me these things and I'll apologize...............
.lol sound familiar BRUCE?
I'll say it again Mr. Pritchard.
I'm simply telling you we don't know how many and that your "fact" is nothing more than a person's opinion you're are passing on as fact.
because the bottom line is we don't know.
that's why i said between 50k and 600k
try again Pritch.
