Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 14

Tashah · 02-02-08, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

Do you think the USAF parachuted a Photo Journalist just before every bombing? Ridiculous!

And you think the Lancet people witnessed every death in Iraq? That's even more ridiculous.

The Lancet study is an 'estimation' funded by the highly biased George Soros. Would you accept Iraq mortality figures from a study funded by William Krystal? Of course not. Rule number one when conducting a professional inquiry... do not accept operating funds from anyone with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Why? Because doing so is considered unprofessional and taints any claim of study independence and impartiality.

Billo_Really · 02-02-08, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

And you think the Lancet people witnessed every death in Iraq? That's even more ridiculous.

The Lancet study is an 'estimation' funded by the highly biased George Soros. Would you accept Iraq mortality figures from a study funded by William Krystal? Of course not. Rule number one when conducting a professional inquiry... do not accept operating funds from anyone with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Why? Because doing so is considered unprofessional and taints any claim of study independence and impartiality.

This is classic Tashah 101. When in the case of not having a good argument for rebuttal, always discredit and demean the source. You're the one doing the "tainting" here, my dear. You have absolutely no proof the Lancet findings were politically motivated, yet you cast that spectre as if it came from God himself. This is more commonly known as an ad hominum, mi Lady..........deal with it!

Tashah · 02-02-08, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

This is classic Tashah 101. When in the case of not having a good argument for rebuttal, always discredit and demean the source. You're the one doing the "tainting" here, my dear. You have absolutely no proof the Lancet findings were politically motivated, yet you cast that spectre as if it came from God himself. This is more commonly known as an ad hominum, mi Lady..........deal with it!

The classic Billo-in-denial post lol. Soros funded the study. Soros is highly biased. Soros got his money's worth. The Lancet $tudy... courtesy of George $oros.

Billo_Really · 02-02-08, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The classic Billo-in-denial post lol. Soros funded the study. Soros is highly biased. Soros got his money's worth. The Lancet $tudy... courtesy of George $oros.

Next time, muster up a valid rebuttal.

Hundebolg · 02-02-08, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The classic Billo-in-denial post lol. Soros funded the study. Soros is highly biased. Soros got his money's worth. The Lancet $tudy... courtesy of George $oros.

You have a surprisingly low esteem of leading science publications.

Tashah · 02-02-08, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Next time, muster up a valid rebuttal.

Next time, read the fine print.

Billo_Really · 02-02-08, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Next time, read the fine print.

Do you want to have a conversation or not?

Billo_Really · 02-02-08, 11:55 AM

Another opinion from someone who spent several months filming inside an Iraq hospital.

Quote:

MJ: The accuracy of civilian casualty counts is an ongoing point of dispute. Different organizations have numbers as low as 50,000 and as high as 600,000 or more. What do you think is accurate?

OSM: You've seen the film. At Al Yarmouk, they might receive 50, 60 casualties in a day, and that's only one hospital in one part of Baghdad. So I believe that the number is really high, that it exceeds 600,000. Also, a lot of people are killed and buried without any registration in certain areas where there's no government control or no access to official records. Personally, I lost my father last summer. All the friends I know and all the relatives I know have lost somebody, or they know somebody who's been killed or been disappeared. So I think the casualties are really high. Still, it's very difficult to get information, especially with our government trying to withhold it— they just don't want to say the truth, and they're trying to give the wrong picture. I mean, even now when they're saying that casualty numbers are decreasing, this is because people have either fled Baghdad or fled Iraq, or because they are hiding in their houses. And besides, I really don't see any difference if there are 200,000 or 600,000. No one should be killed in this way. I don't know why people seem to only want higher numbers so they can say it's a bad situation. One person is enough.

Tashah · 02-02-08, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Another opinion from someone who spent several months filming inside an Iraq hospital.

Once again. This person says nothing of the causality of casualties. S/he even thanks the American military for providing protection to the hospital and staff.

Billo_Really · 02-02-08, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Once again. This person says nothing of the causality of casualties. S/he even thanks the American military for providing protection to the hospital and staff.

The doctor turned journalist also mentions the overwhelming fact that many people were buried without being counted. Which is one of the drawbacks of sources such as the iraqbodycount.org or the Iraqi Ministry of Health. In a country of over 25 million people, every household knows of someone who has died in the last 6 years.