Quote:
Originally Posted by oldreliable67  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:
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. |
The study was difficult because it was in a war zone-that is why they had a wide range. This method is the most accurate for a war zone and more accurate than holocaust numbers. MIT statisticians carefully analyzed methods and stats-war casualties are always greatly underestimated. The researchers from Johns Hopkins did not politically sway any study. They have the highest ethics and no need to sway anything nor would they.
The most ridiculous argument was the Iraq Ministry of Health denial-in fact they were taken over by Shiite militias and were murdering people in hospitals and morgues. They also ordered a halt of any record of deaths. During the worst violence (years!) Iraqis were finding bodies in the rivers and burying their own family members and finding body parts everywhere.
The IBC was only counting those in a morgue with a toe tag and two witnesses. Most Iraqis were not carrying their dead to the morgue.
The Lancet included deaths of any cause over and above normal-for example if someone died because of an MVA who could have easily been treated in a hospital and medical care was unavailable because of the invasion.
You need to read
The Lancet carefully to understand it-there is no doubt within their margin of error they were the closest of all casualty counts.