Lancet study validity in doubt

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-07-08, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I see you don't do your homework.

I very seldom use ad hominum's and I've already posted my proof.

As far as Michelle is concerned, she's a psycho, but cute enough to bang!

I guess asking you to answer the analysis by an expert inside that link was too much to ask of you.

But at least you got to say you would bang the chick....

Great post.

Billo_Really · 02-07-08, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I guess asking you to answer the analysis by an expert inside that link was too much to ask of you.

But at least you got to say you would bang the chick....

Great post.

You wouldn't know a great post if it hit you in the face.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-07-08, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

You wouldn't know a great post if it hit you in the face.

By your definition of one I guess not, I don't frequent stormfront....

now why won't you adress the substance of the analysis in the link I provided.

Billo_Really · 02-07-08, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

By your definition of one I guess not, I don't frequent stormfront....

now why won't you adress the substance of the analysis in the link I provided.

If you don't address mine, what makes you think I'll do that for you?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-07-08, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

If you don't address mine, what makes you think I'll do that for you?

What specifically have I not addressed. Please by all means if I missed something I will be happy to address it.

But this was a retreat tactic for you wasn't it.

Chanda · 02-07-08, 02:38 PM

“Kane shows that if the Falluja cluster is included in the statistical calculations, the confidence interval dips below zero, which is a big no-no. Since the study’s raw data remain a closely guarded secret, Kane cannot be absolutely certain that the inclusion of the Falluja cluster renders the study mathematically invalid…

Michelle Malkin Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study

"The (Lancet Study) authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja."

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not such a closely guarded secret as Kane claimed.

GySgt · 02-08-08, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

The only thing that amazes me, is your expection of people thinking you are an expert in this field to such an extent that you judgement is qualified to even criticize a report by actual experts in the field of epidimiology.

It would be like me criticizing your comments on "gunnery stuff!"

Or you trying to tell me what's what in the field of "electrical engineering".

Here, I'll give you a hands on example...Okay, smart guy, what's your answer?

Electrical engineering equals to something of value to the Lancet Report? Anyway....Ever notice how no report since has come close to validating this report? Ever notice how it was shelved soon enough by almost every analyst and critic? The only one's clinging to it are those that need it to validate their anger. The joke of this anger is that they can't even see clear enough to recognize that Muslims slaughtered Muslims. Just like they do in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.... Muslims in the Middle East find great comfort in accepting that this is what Muslims do upon Muslims, but what is your excuse for attributing their behaviors upon themselves to America? How dare we free them and not brutalize them into behaving.

You see, a simple application of common sense prevails often enough. As I have stated enough times, a simple exercise in math shows this report to be grossly exaggerated. Yet, you absolutely need this many Iraqis to have been slaughtered. Why?

Billo_Really · 02-08-08, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Electrical engineering equals to something of value to the Lancet Report? Anyway....Ever notice how no report since has come close to validating this report? Ever notice how it was shelved soon enough by almost every analyst and critic? The only one's clinging to it are those that need it to validate their anger. The joke of this anger is that they can't even see clear enough to recognize that Muslims slaughtered Muslims. Just like they do in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.... Muslims in the Middle East find great comfort in accepting that this is what Muslims do upon Muslims, but what is your excuse for attributing their behaviors upon themselves to America? How dare we free them and not brutalize them into behaving.

You see, a simple application of common sense prevails often enough. As I have stated enough times, a simple exercise in math shows this report to be grossly exaggerated. Yet, you absolutely need this many Iraqis to have been slaughtered. Why?

Talk about a major league cop-out.

When the questions get tough, the tough get running...

GySgt · 02-10-08, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Talk about a major league cop-out.

When the questions get tough, the tough get running...

Your electrical engineering question has nothing to do with the common sense that is this subject. I fail to see how not playing your childish game of "look I can be right too" equates to "running." I am still here and you are still refusing to do your own math. Who's running?

Once again, I invite you to do your own math. Will you instead feast upon a lone wolf report that contradicts even the UN's statements? A UN, you always seek to "prove" right and wrong with?

Talk about a tough couple of questions. And check it out...they had something to do with the topic too.

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Your electrical engineering question has nothing to do with the common sense that is this subject. I fail to see how not playing your childish game of "look I can be right too" equates to "running." I am still here and you are still refusing to do your own math. Who's running?

Once again, I invite you to do your own math. Will you instead feast upon a lone wolf report that contradicts even the UN's statements? A UN, you always seek to "prove" right and wrong with?

Talk about a tough couple of questions. And check it out...they had something to do with the topic too.

I was making a point.

A point your ego apparently will not allow you to see.

02-07-08, 02:38 PM	#166
Chanda Professor Join Date: Jan 2007 Last Online: 06-30-09 01:15 PM Posts: 1,501 Thanks: 509 Thanked 415 Times in 291 Posts Lean: Independent Gender:	Re: Lancet study validity in doubt “Kane shows that if the Falluja cluster is included in the statistical calculations, the confidence interval dips below zero, which is a big no-no. Since the study’s raw data remain a closely guarded secret, Kane cannot be absolutely certain that the inclusion of the Falluja cluster renders the study mathematically invalid… Michelle Malkin Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study "The (Lancet Study) authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja." Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not such a closely guarded secret as Kane claimed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode