Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 7

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-23-08, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

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.

Ahh the last resort of the debate loser, name calling and critisizing grammar all without explaining your postion....

Note how you avoided ALL of the Good Reverend's brilliant points......

Fact is you want to believe thier is that much death in Iraq. It gets little billio all turgid for the US to lose this war so he can cackle like a little hen about how bad and evil we are and have the corpses to prove it.

Sorry "junior" that dog don't hunt.

Quote:

Why would they lie?

Their the ones we are supposedly helping.

And you are calling the Good Reverend "too stupid".

You are a lunatic fringe liberal so you belive that they don't want us there. So if you can muster a cogent thought perhaps they would exagerate to make it seem worse than it is. Or perhaps they thought if they inflated thier numbers at a later time they may get more benefits, or perhaps they'd like to seem more low down than they are. OR perhaps the "surveyors" asked the different people from the same household.

You know if people who had "no reason" to lie didn't actually lie, then according to exit polls John Kerry would have been president.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Khayembii Communique · 01-23-08, 10:46 AM

Quote:

You are a lunatic fringe liberal so you belive that they don't want us there.

They don't!

6 in 10 Iraqis favor attacks on US troops.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 01-23-08, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

They don't!

6 in 10 Iraqis favor attacks on US troops.

Cool, if that is true then you just provided motive as to Billio's question as to "why they would lie" or if not true how surveys can screw up......

Good Show!

Hundebolg · 01-23-08, 06:06 PM

The validity of the Lancet study, stipulating over 600.000 violent Iraqi deaths since the illegal US aggression is being comforted by it's very positive echo with leading scientists.

Quote:

Reputable researchers have accepted the Lancet study’s results as valid with virtually no dissent. Juan Cole, the most visible American Middle East scholar, summarized it in a particularly vivid comment: "the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible [in a little over three years] for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years."

Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More? [Voltaire]

RightinNYC · 01-24-08, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hundebolg

The validity of the Lancet study, stipulating over 600.000 violent Iraqi deaths since the illegal US aggression is being comforted by it's very positive echo with leading scientists.

Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More? [Voltaire]

And it's being disputed by every single other study ever conducted on the issue. Including a bigger, better, more reliable Lancet study using the exact same methodology as the original piece.

New Estimate of Violent Deaths Among Iraqis Is Lower - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country...For the new study, however, surveyors visited 23 times as many places and interviewed five times as many households. Surveyors also got more outside supervision in the recent study; that wasn't possible in the spring of 2006 when the Johns Hopkins survey was conducted..."Overall, this is a very good study," said Paul Spiegel, a medical epidemiologist at the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in Geneva. "What they have done that other studies have not is try to compensate for the inaccuracies and difficulties of these surveys, triangulating to get information from other sources."

And

at the idea of Juan Cole having any authority to comment on the authenticity of the survey. He's a sociologist and a historian, not a statistician, and I can guarantee you that there are at least a dozen people on this forum alone who are more qualified to address the survey than he.

Billo_Really · 01-25-08, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

And it's being disputed by every single other study ever conducted on the issue. Including a bigger, better, more reliable Lancet study using the exact same methodology as the original piece.

New Estimate of Violent Deaths Among Iraqis Is Lower - washingtonpost.com

And

at the idea of Juan Cole having any authority to comment on the authenticity of the survey. He's a sociologist and a historian, not a statistician, and I can guarantee you that there are at least a dozen people on this forum alone who are more qualified to address the survey than he.

Don't talk to me about who's funding what when you offer a survey from the Iraqi government...

Quote:

The survey, conducted by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization,

...who have made it illegal to divulge the actual number of dead civilians...

Quote:

One senior Health Ministry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there are detailed casualty numbers, but "we have strict instructions not to give them out." The U.N. human rights mission in Iraq has criticized the Iraqi government for withholding information on civilian casualties.

...and even a member of that governments' health department said your survey is probably low.

Quote:

Jalil Hadi al-Shimmari, who oversees the western Baghdad health department, said the 151,000 total seems roughly accurate but is probably a "modest" one. "The real number might be bigger than this," he said

Even still, I applaud you on your efforts and do not dismiss this survey the way you have dismissed mine. In fact, I accept that it is one (as part of a list) of options that may be the truth.

Billo_Really · 01-25-08, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Cool, if that is true then you just provided motive as to Billio's question as to "why they would lie" or if not true how surveys can screw up......

Good Show!

Another statement that makes absolutely no sense.

Billo_Really · 01-25-08, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Ahh the last resort of the debate loser, name calling and critisizing grammar all without explaining your postion....

Note how you avoided ALL of the Good Reverend's brilliant points......

Fact is you want to believe thier is that much death in Iraq. It gets little billio all turgid for the US to lose this war so he can cackle like a little hen about how bad and evil we are and have the corpses to prove it.

Sorry "junior" that dog don't hunt.

And you are calling the Good Reverend "too stupid".

You are a lunatic fringe liberal so you belive that they don't want us there. So if you can muster a cogent thought perhaps they would exagerate to make it seem worse than it is. Or perhaps they thought if they inflated thier numbers at a later time they may get more benefits, or perhaps they'd like to seem more low down than they are. OR perhaps the "surveyors" asked the different people from the same household.

You know if people who had "no reason" to lie didn't actually lie, then according to exit polls John Kerry would have been president.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

I didn't call you stupid.

I made a rhetorical statement.

There's a big difference!