Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 23

Hundebolg · 02-21-08, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Your in great compan billo!

Are you some kind of religious bigot that disdains science and mathematics ?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-21-08, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

Are you some kind of religious bigot that disdains science and mathematics ?

Actually I posted a statistition from havard who rolls the lancet like a cigarette.

Here it is again. Care to comment on it or will you stick your fingers in your ear and go "lallalalalalalalalala"?

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

I await.

Hundebolg · 02-21-08, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Actually I posted a statistition from havard who rolls the lancet like a cigarette.

Here it is again. Care to comment on it or will you stick your fingers in your ear and go "lallalalalalalalalala"?

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

I await.

All those "critiques" of the Lancet study lack any scientific credibility, else they would have been published in the Lancet itself. Get yourself straight with the real numbers: Madman Bush caused the death of over a million innocent victims lying the **** out of ignorant american citizens like you. That's all you need to know.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-21-08, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

All those "critiques" of the Lancet study lack any scientific credibility, else they would have been published in the Lancet itself. Get yourself straight with the real numbers: Madman Bush caused the death of over a million innocent victims lying the **** out of ignorant american citizens like you. That's all you need to know.

Oh thats right your a kooky conspiratists eurotrash elitist....

Kane is a harvard statistition.

Debunk his work instead of feeding me bullplop.

Billo_Really · 02-21-08, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Oh thats right your a kooky conspiratists eurotrash elitist....

Kane is a harvard statistition.

Debunk his work instead of feeding me bullplop.

Alright, the door swings both ways.

Why should we believe your link. It is from one of the most whackiest righties on the block. Michelle Malkin is a total psycho. So anything you use from her website is to taken as automatically false.

So your little stat-man is FOS!

If you want to play this game, that's how we play it.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-21-08, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Alright, the door swings both ways.

Why should we believe your link. It is from one of the most whackiest righties on the block. Michelle Malkin is a total psycho. So anything you use from her website is to taken as automatically false.

So your little stat-man is FOS!

If you want to play this game, that's how we play it.

You tried oh so hard, and you failed miserably.

The Kane study from Oxford.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/On..._versus_L2.pdf

You lose. again. as usual.

Billo_Really · 02-21-08, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

You tried oh so hard, and you failed miserably.

The Kane study from Oxford.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/On..._versus_L2.pdf

You lose. again. as usual.

You submit something you don't even understand and can not read all the way through.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-21-08, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

You submit something you don't even understand and can not read all the way through.

No billio it is you who don't understand it. Remember you admitted it.

So is it because of the source or because you don't understand it that you wont address it?

Billo_Really · 02-21-08, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

No billio it is you who don't understand it. Remember you admitted it.

So is it because of the source or because you don't understand it that you wont address it?

I told you to stop calling me names!

oldreliable67 · 02-22-08, 09:37 AM

As others have pointed out, the Oxford study also states:

Quote:

Unfortunately, the authors of L1 have not released the data that would be necessary to allow researchers to make an estimate of violent deaths, let alone put a confidence interval around such an estimate. However, they did make public a central estimate of 57,600 violent deaths for all of Iraq excluding Anbar governorate.5 We hope that the authors of L1 will place the L1 dataset in the public domain so that the figure of 57,600 can be checked and a confidence interval placed around it. At a minimum the authors should provide their own confidence interval.6

Thats really all anyone needs to know about the validity of the Lancet study. Contrary to accepted practice, the authors did not make public the data necessary for independent validation of their work. A degree in statistics or epidemiology is not required to understand that unless or until they do, their work should not be accepted at face value. It should be taken into consideration with appropriate caveats, yes, but their results should not be accepted as definitive nor reliable.