Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 2

savoir-faire · 01-09-08, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

Ahh, nothing brings credibility to an argument like referencing the message boards at Pearl Jam.com!

Pearl jam has noting to do with anything-it had a copy of Les Robert's refute to the critique of the MIT/Johns Hopkins study. Les Roberts refute was copied to hundreds of news and message boards-that is just one of thousands. I have never read Pearl Jam but have read Les refute and that was the first place that came up for a copy. It is insignificant in the discussion.

savoir-faire · 01-09-08, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

Nahhh just a rehash of the same old right wing rag critique-nothing new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

Yeah, this brings credibility to your argument

I noticed you made no comment on the post that addressed the critique. So would you like to discuss cluster method of casualty statisitcs or the MIT calculation or the reason for the release date or the methods used by the ISG or the Iraq ministry and their reliabilty during 2001-to present including their swaying of stats, refusal to count bodies and our military taking over their headquarters due to corruption by Shiite death squads and desire to cover up murders?

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

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.

So is their anyone who believes they know of any study that was closer in estimating deaths above normal in Iraq in the time period studied? If so please show me the study and we can compare and contrast your count against the MIT/Johns Hopkins school of public health method.

oldreliable67 · 01-10-08, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

So is their anyone who believes they know of any study that was closer in estimating deaths above normal in Iraq in the time period studied? If so please show me the study and we can compare and contrast your count against the MIT/Johns Hopkins school of public health method.

A new WHO study puts the number of deaths at 151,000. The study was published by The Chronicle of Higher Education. Their lead-in states: "A new survey estimates that 151,000 violent deaths took place in Iraq between March 2003 and June 2006. The finding increases the controversy surrounding an earlier study that came up with a much higher death count for the years following the American-led invasion."

Unfortunately, the article is accessible only by subscription.

NPR described the article this way:

Quote:

A study conducted by the World Health Organization and the Iraq Health Ministry estimates that more than 150,000 Iraqis suffered violent deaths in the first three years after the U.S. invasion.

That's about a fourth of the number of deaths found in an earlier controversial study.

The World Health Organization's study of violent deaths is based on visits to more than 10,000 households throughout Iraq. Ties Boerma, WHO's director of Measurements and Health Information, says the results include the deaths of civilians and soldiers who were part of those households.

"They don't include car accidents and they don't include unintentional injuries," says Boerma. "They just include intentional injuries and armed conflict. In fact, the armed conflict deaths are more than 80 percent of the deaths we got reported."

Researchers left it up to the respondents to define the cause of death.

"If they said someone died while trying to avoid a bomb blast, (you) could define it as an armed conflict death, but that was up to the respondents," says Boerma.

Boerma and his team looked at the period between March 2003 and June 2006, and estimated 151,000 violent deaths in Iraq.

That's a fraction of the more than 600,000 violent deaths reported for the same period by researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in 2006, a survey that continues to be debated in the press and political circles.

Both studies counted civilian and combatant fatalities. Boerma thinks the difference in their findings is that the earlier Hopkins study visited far fewer neighborhoods and villages. Researchers working with Hopkins visited 47 so-called clusters; researchers with WHO visited more than 1,000 clusters.

"Because we are talking about a survey that is much larger, we have a little bit more confidence in that method than in a very small cluster survey," says Boerma.

Re: the Lancet survey: Right wing claims that the Lancet survey should be discredited just because it was partially funded by George Soros's Open Society Institute are just partisanship at work. It seems to me that OSI does considerable laudable non-partisan work. But the influence of one of the three authors, a critic of the war, declaring that he "wanted to get the survey out before the election, if at all possible" is quite telling, IMO.

Moreover, while survey sampling and the drawing of inferences for a population therefrom is a well-known and accepted technique, any study without well documented methodology and data is highly suspect if not entirely worthless. Peer review is a very necessary tool to keep people honest. When it cannot be done thoroughly because of an author(s) refusing to release key information, an assumption of dishonesty is not unwarranted. At the very least, a questioning of motives and purpose are appropriate.

Though he was making reference to reports of alien visitations, the late astronomer Carl Sagan's popular saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," seems to apply to the Lancet study as well. But that evidence was not made available, contrary to ordinary, much less extraordinary, practice.

WI Crippler · 01-10-08, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

Les Roberts refute was copied to hundreds of news and message boards-that is just one of thousands.

Alex: WI Crippler???

WI Crippler: What is SPAM, Alex.

Alex: Correct! Also referred to as Spamming. You have the board.

Wi Crippler: Let's keep going Alex. Misconstrued Studies for $800 please.....

ashurbanipal · 01-10-08, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldReliable

Though he was making reference to reports of alien visitations, the late astronomer Carl Sagan's popular saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," seems to apply to the Lancet study as well. But that evidence was not made available, contrary to ordinary, much less extraordinary, practice.

A couple points, in no particular order:

1) From a strictly abstract POV, I'm not sure that the notions of an "extraordinary claim" or "extraordinary evidence" are coherent. Who decides what qualifies? I think it should just be that a posteriori claims are required to be supported by some evidence, and refuted by none. Sagan, and those that followed his path of attempting to influence public attitudes via the explication of attitudes and findings within the domain of science did a lot of harm. I have great respect for Sagan for other reasons, but I am disappointed in this part of his legacy.

2) So is the claim that some 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion extraordinary? Applying the general principle, I'm not sure the idea makes sense; who knows whether it's extraordinary or not? Is it possible? Obivously so--it's possible that many, many more than that have died. So there are no a priori reasons for rejecting it.

3) Is it likely? Looking at other wars, it certainly seems that this number wouldn't be entirely out of whack. Comparing to estimates of the number of civilians who died in other wars, it seems this number is in the ballpark of believability. It's been said that the greatest cause of error in the human race is forgetfulness. Every generation has a war, and every generation learns, after a lot of bloodshed, that war is something to be avoided--for this very reason.

4) In general, I think the methodology the authors claim to have used was sound, though there is a considerable amount of confusion about it. I think we have to keep in mind that this is a highly politically charged issue. If this is true, or (heaven forefend) if this number is actually low, then we have a serious lot of atoning to do. There is considerable psychological pressure to want to deny that we might be guilty of death on such a scale.

5) All of this said, though, some of the criticisms are valid. It would certainly be nice if the survey forms had been released to peer reviewers prior to publication. No need to release them to the public as the security concerns for the families surveyed are valid. But confidence in the study would be increased significantly if a group of six or ten other guys who understood the way these studies are supposed to be conducted came back and said "Yes, the raw data and the study methodology support the conclusion." To my knowledge, this didn't happen. So there is legitimate room for questioning these results. But just as I get the impression that the authors, once the study was completed, used the data to a political end, I get the impression that people who criticize the study do so for political ends as well.

6) Regardless of the actual number, I think we have to acknowledge that a lot of civilians have died as a result of our invasion. It's a very curious time when we can look at a number like 150,000 civilians killed with relief.

Diogenes · 01-10-08, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

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.

What is considered "normal" for pre-invasion Iraq? People thrown off buildings, Kurds being gassed -- are these considered "normal" by the report authors? Is the post-invasion internal violence supposed to be caused by the invasion, now that the idea of a "civil war" has been discredited?

Just asking.

savoir-faire · 01-10-08, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

What is considered "normal" for pre-invasion Iraq? People thrown off buildings, Kurds being gassed -- are these considered "normal" by the report authors? Is the post-invasion internal violence supposed to be caused by the invasion, now that the idea of a "civil war" has been discredited?

Just asking.

Iraq had the most advanced medical system in the mideast and the JH study did include deaths that were not related to violence yet caused by the invasion. for example if a 12 year old boy died of a ruptured appendix and had a state of the art medical center by his home that pre war could have been a minor hospitalization and the hospital was gutted in the war that was counted as a casualty.

savoir-faire · 01-10-08, 10:28 PM

Interesting points you made ash-actually both studies used a similar methodology called cluster sampling which is considered reliable. the difference in results were related to the WHO/New England Journal of Medicine study is that the JH study included deaths of families that were gone -if a neighbor reported the gutted house next door had a man and his son killed and that his wife and other son and daughter fled to syria the JH study would count those deaths where the WHO study would not-only when they could interview a family member residing currently in the home was the death counted. considering the number of refugees the WHO study is obviously an underestimate. In addition both studies were concluded before the most violent period of deaths and so both studies did not even include most of 2006, any of 2007 until present.

Those who discount the numbers of the JH study are also calling into how holocaust victims numbers were counted.If only reported by a neighbor or cousin the WHO study did not include them so if that is the only method acceptable then it would drastically change the body count of other wars.

Keep in mind casualties of war numbers are usually underestimated because of the difficulty of counting during a war and sheer numbers of people where entire families were wiped out.

ashurbanipal · 01-11-08, 09:01 AM

It's my understanding that the Lancet authors discounted all or some data from Fallujah, because had they included it, the actual figure at the time would have been 1.2 million (or something in that ballpark).

oldreliable67 · 01-11-08, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Regardless of the actual number, I think we have to acknowledge that a lot of civilians have died as a result of our invasion. It's a very curious time when we can look at a number like 150,000 civilians killed with relief.

Read my comments again and you will absolutely no allusion to nor indication of viewing "a number like 150,000 civilians killed with relief". My sole purpose in this thread has been to present evidence and opinions regarding the validity of the Lancet II study, nothing more, nothing less. The tragedy of any number of civilian deaths as a result of our invasion of Iraq should be self-evident to all, but too often, isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

2) So is the claim that some 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion extraordinary? Applying the general principle, I'm not sure the idea makes sense; who knows whether it's extraordinary or not? Is it possible? Obivously so--it's possible that many, many more than that have died. So there are no a priori reasons for rejecting it.

In the context of the reporting extant at the time of the release of the Lancet study, did not 600,00 seem quite extraordinary? Otherwise, why would have caused such a uproar? IIRC, most estimates were running somewhere in the 100,000 to 200,000 range. Thats just my impression, though. Since my focus here has been to examine the critiques of the Lancet study, I haven't researched the other estimates being offered at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

There is considerable psychological pressure to want to deny that we might be guilty of death on such a scale.

Yes, there is, which is all the more reason for the authors of the Lancet study to provide the details of their research: to better counter pressure that would deny the validity of their research. Which they still haven't done.

There is also considerable partisan pressure to present the Iraq invasion and anything to do with the Bush administration's handling of it in the poorest light possible. Which also casts suspicion on the motives of at least one of the Lancet researchers.