Many critics of the Bush administration and the Iraqi invasion have trumpeted the results of the
Lancet II study, which posited a very large number of Iraqi casualties as a result of the US invasion. A few questioned the results all along, but the unwillingness of the researchers to provided verifiable data and other background info left the validity of the study still open to question.
Now, though, some new analysis is being published that call the validity of
Lancet II and its conclusions very much into question. Munro and Cannon, writing for the
National Journal, published an article identifying these potential problems with the study:
Quote:
|
NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.
|
The authors detail their findings in a very convincing manner, and conclude that the
Lancet II study was seriously flawed in a number of ways.
Read their article and see if you agree with their arguments.