Lancet Study: '655,000 Dead' = Bunk

[BRUCE]

Hello all.  As you may know, The Lancet, a formerly respected medical journal, reported last year that the estimated (and I mean estimated) civilian death toll in Iraq since the start of the war was 655,000.  Let me explain, using resources and facts, why this figure is so incorrect, it should remove this journal from the domain of serious debate for a long, long time:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.


This is important because the report actually does say these 655,000 people have died on top of those that would have died had Saddam remained in power.  This total, needless to say, is unimaginably high.

But is it wrong?  Don't let me sway your opinion, lets hear what the experts have to say:


An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

“They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

“This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=a8b58a972ff83c14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, a London-based human-rights group, called the Lancet study’s figures “pretty shockingly high.” His group tabulates the civilian death toll based on media reports augmented by local hospital and morgue records. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.


And what is Hamit's estimation of the civilian deaths?


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position

Min       Max
57805  63573  


Interesting, more than 10 times less, and with around 6 months' more data.

What does the UN think?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6266393.stm

More than 34,000 civilians were killed in violence in Iraq during 2006, a UN human rights official has said.


That's hardly anywhere near the 150,000 or so a year the Lancet would have you believe.  And then this:

[ribonucleic]

Oh, so we've only killed 57,000 Iraqi civilians?

Thanks for sharing the good news.

[BRUCE]

Oh, so we've only killed 57,000 Iraqi civilians?
Thanks for sharing the good news.

I'm hardly here to herald the death of any innocent lives as a good thing, but you may play the fool if it suits you.  The deaths of civilians in Iraq, so you know, are largely down to the acts of terror that are particularly gripping the North, but I'm sure you've erm, taken this into account - being such a fair critic and all.

This Lancet study is way off, and should be condemned as such.

[OzmO]

this was discussed a few months ago on the general forum before we had a political forum.

We will  probably never know the true number, but it's between 50k and 600k and most likely in the 100k area.

[Dos Equis]

Hello all.  As you may know, The Lancet, a formerly respected medical journal, reported last year that the estimated (and I mean estimated) civilian death toll in Iraq since the start of the war was 655,000.  Let me explain, using resources and facts, why this figure is so incorrect, it should remove this journal from the domain of serious debate for a long, long time:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.


This is important because the report actually does say these 655,000 people have died on top of those that would have died had Saddam remained in power.  This total, needless to say, is unimaginably high.

But is it wrong?  Don't let me sway your opinion, lets hear what the experts have to say:


An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

“They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

“This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=a8b58a972ff83c14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, a London-based human-rights group, called the Lancet study’s figures “pretty shockingly high.” His group tabulates the civilian death toll based on media reports augmented by local hospital and morgue records. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.


And what is Hamit's estimation of the civilian deaths?


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position

Min       Max
57805  63573  


Interesting, more than 10 times less, and with around 6 months' more data.

What does the UN think?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6266393.stm

More than 34,000 civilians were killed in violence in Iraq during 2006, a UN human rights official has said.


That's hardly anywhere near the 150,000 or so a year the Lancet would have you believe.  And then this:

So the absurdly high estimate was based on an interview of 547 families?   

[BRUCE]

So the absurdly high estimate was based on an interview of 547 families?   

Pathetic, isn't it.  How this garbage got successfully peer reviewed speaks wonders for this 'scientific' procedure.

[BRUCE]

this was discussed a few months ago on the general forum before we had a political forum.

We will  probably never know the true number, but it's between 50k and 600k and most likely in the 100k area.

I think it's significantly lower than 100,000, but you're right to note it's far, far below 600,000.

[OzmO]

How do you use a survey that involves sampling to get an accurate death count?

doesn't make sense

[BRUCE]

How do you use a survey that involves sampling to get an accurate count?
doesn't make sense

Not sure, it would have been contained within the methodology of this report, which from what I've heard was poor to say the least.  How they use this as a blanket measure for the entire nation is a mystery to me.

[ribonucleic]

The deaths of civilians in Iraq, so you know, are largely down to the acts of terror that are particularly gripping the North

"Largely"... but not "exclusively"?

Is this a tacit acknowledgment that a few tragic accidents here and there have been at the hands of well-meaning US forces? [We won't consider the likes of James P. Barker, of course.]

If so, I hope that, in the midst of their grief, their surviving relatives will find our good intentions - and of course the bright future that we're even now in the course of making a reality for the Iraqi people - of some consolation.

[BRUCE]

"Largely"... but not "exclusively"?

No, this is an unfortunate reality of war, as you would plainly recognise.  The rest of your post is garbage that would be best ignored, much like this comment:

I like Bill and I agree with him about most things. [His favorable comparison of the physical courage of the 9/11 hijackers relative to our Air Force bomber pilots, for example.]

You're quite the pro-terrorist, aren't you?

[ribonucleic]

You're quite the pro-terrorist, aren't you?

Whatever can be said of their beliefs, the 9/11 hijackers were brave enough to give their lives for them.

You on the other hand - while happily cheering on the slaughter from the sidelines - are willing to risk nothing more than a Repetitive Stress Injury from your keyboard.

I respect them a whole lot more than I respect you. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

This is a somewhat difficult topic to debate over. I agree the numbers are absurdly inflated but there is still a huge number of dead. I don't see much cause for celebration when 100,000 are dead instead of 655,000.

[BRUCE]

Whatever can be said of their beliefs, the 9/11 hijackers were brave enough to give their lives for them.....I respect them

You know, this doesn't exactly bode well for your 'opinion' here?

If you'd like to describe the wanton mass murder of thousands of innocent people as 'brave(ry)' then that's your prerogative.  If you 'respect' 9/11 terrorists for choosing death and destruction over peace and liberty, then so be it.

You become more and more isolated by your wacky arts-student type views of the World.

[BRUCE]

This is a somewhat difficult topic to debate over. I agree the numbers are absurdly inflated but there is still a huge number of dead. I don't see much cause for celebration when 100,000 are dead instead of 655,000.

There's certainly no need to celebrate the deaths of any innocent civilians, and I'm surely not asking you to congratulate anyone.  But, it is nonetheless important to make sure those that would seek to quantify the totals are being held to some sort of legitimacy.

If the figure is indeed 555,000 people lower than what The Lancet would have you believe, is that not a reason to be pleased?

[ribonucleic]

You know, this doesn't exactly bode well for your 'opinion' here?

I've noticed that you say this kind of thing a lot. A very sad kind of "You keep doing that and you'll see what happens!" threat - of the kind one would expect from a bullied elementary school child.

But exactly what prospect am I supposed to feel menaced by? That you're going to get the other kids to agree I have cooties and vote me out of the treehouse?

In case you haven't noticed: earning your respect is - how can I put this? - not high on my To-Do List.

I'll go even farther. To the degree that my opinions offend someone like yourself, I'm all the more inclined to believe that they're ones I can be proud of.

[BRUCE]

I've noticed that you say this kind of thing a lot. A very sad kind of "You keep doing that and you'll see what happens!" threat - of the kind one would expect from a bullied elementary school child.

But exactly what prospect am I supposed to feel menaced by? That you're going to get the other kids to agree I have cooties and vote me out of the treehouse?

In case you haven't noticed: earning your respect is - how can I put this? - not high on my To-Do List.

I'll go even farther. To the degree that my opinions offend someone like yourself, I'm all the more inclined to believe that they're ones I can be proud of.

I wasn't exactly referring to your reputation with me - which is below bottom-feeding - rather it was a statement to the broader Getbig Political member base.

If you truly did not want to seek the approval of your peers, you wouldn't be here posting your views on a public message board - you'd keep them to yourself.  Your actions belie your words, which in no way surprises me.

[ribonucleic]

If you truly did not want to seek the approval of your peers, you wouldn't be here posting your views on a public message board - you'd keep them to yourself.

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Hope this helps.

[BRUCE]

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Hope this helps.

Erm, right.  Speaking of 'defence mechanisms', was that just a completely irrational deflection I noticed?  This time try responding without doing a search on Wikipedia - think you can?  It's starting to make you look more than a little silly.

[OzmO]

Here's the problem with calculating the deaths:

After the infrastructure broke down into chaos in the aftermath of a billiantly orchestrated invasion followed by an stupid, incompetent after war plan, death records probably were never kept. 

So there's no real way to tell as far as i can see.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Here's the problem with calculating the deaths:

After the infrastructure broke down into chaos in the aftermath of a billiantly orchestrated invasion followed by an stupid, incompetent after war plan, death records probably were never kept. 

So there's no real way to tell as far as i can see.

At least in my opinion after a certain amount of deaths the numbers start to lose meaning. The issue with the inflated numbers has been brought to light and that's a good thing but there are still 100,000 or so people dead.

[OzmO]

And this thread was started from an assertion i made that pretty much said:

Unless you are kurd, Iraq is a more dangerous place now than before the war.

[ribonucleic]

Iraq is a more dangerous place now than before the war.

Also less electrified. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

And this thread was started from an assertion i made that pretty much said:

Unless you are kurd, Iraq is a more dangerous place now than before the war.

Well, considering the streets of Baghdad are often littered with dead bodies from gang violence and bombings I'd say that's an accurate statement.

[BRUCE]

Also less electrified. 

Any chance of you revealing exactly which nation you find yourself in, or will you evade the question again?