Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 6

Tashah · 01-21-08, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

That's not because the shoe is too small but because your foot is too large.

I suppose it does seem large from a bent-over perspective.

Billo_Really · 01-21-08, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

That the study's not been thoroughly discredited as a load of ****?

You're slippin'...

I've never said the "...study's not been thoroughly discredited..."

I have said the people doing the "discrediting" are usually uninformed layman who are pro-war. You are not going to find too many epidemiologists putting down this survey. And if you do find one who questions the methods used, the odds are they are probably bank-rolled by the Administration or are in the pockets of the pro-war crowd. You WILL NOT FIND any expert (in the know), who is neutral in this war, put down that report.

danarhea · 01-21-08, 06:54 PM

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.

___________________________________________

Diogenes · 01-22-08, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

That's not because the shoe is too small but because your foot is too large.

Or perhaps in this case the political agenda is too large for the data?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-22-08, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Are you an expert in epidimeology?

If one is not, does that mean we have o believe the lancet survey?

Asking people in a warzone about how many died to me seems would return inflated results.

Billo_Really · 01-22-08, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

If one is not, does that mean we have o believe the lancet survey?

No you don't. It just keeps things in perspective (ie., layman criticizing expert).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Asking people in a warzone about how many died to me seems would return inflated results.

They are not asking how many people have died. They are asking "each household" if they have had a loved one who has died within the last 4 years. Do you think you would notice someone (you had been living with) missing if you didn't see them anymore?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-22-08, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

No you don't. It just keeps things in perspective (ie., layman criticizing expert).

Logical fallacy. We know enough.

Quote:

They are not asking how many people have died. They are asking "each household" if they have had a loved one who has died within the last 4 years. Do you think you would notice someone (you had been living with) missing if you didn't see them anymore?

And you expect them to answer honestly enough not to skew the results?

Billo_Really · 01-22-08, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Logical fallacy. We know enough.

It is like you trying to tell Michael Jordan how to play basketball. You might know how to play, but not at his level. And you're pretty god-damn arrogant and living in a fantasy world if you think you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

And you expect them to answer honestly enough not to skew the results?

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-22-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

It is like you trying to tell Michael Jordan how to play basketball. You might know how to play, but not at his level. And you're pretty god-damn arrogant and living in a fantasy world if you think you do.

Wait so it is just as hard to ask people about deaths in thier families as it is to be a basketball player in the NBA?

Is this really your logical argument as to how we don't know because we are stupid argument?

Quote:

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So you are going to tell me they all answered honestly in a warzone? Or possible do you think they thought it might lead to aid so they inflated thier numbers.

How many presented death certificates or other evidence or was this simply a trust thing?

Billo_Really · 01-22-08, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Wait so it is just as hard to ask people about deaths in thier families as it is to be a basketball player in the NBA?

Is this really your logical argument as to how we don't know because we are stupid argument?

Your english gets worse with every post.

I gave you an analogy. If you're too stupid to understand it, that's not my problem, junior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So you are going to tell me they all answered honestly in a warzone? Or possible do you think they thought it might lead to aid so they inflated thier numbers.

How many presented death certificates or other evidence or was this simply a trust thing?

Why would they lie?

Their the ones we are supposedly helping.