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.

Tashah

The Lancet study results always seemed... skewered to me. Like trying to force a foot into an ill-fitting shoe. I hope to hear more on this development.

__________________

RightinNYC

Dammit Billo, get in here and take what's coming to you!

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

WI Crippler

Yeah, like trying to fit my size 13 into my 11 months old sons shoe. I can get a toe in, thats about it.....

__________________
"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" - Vincent T. Lombardi.

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.

akyron

Respectfully, It appears there is quite a bit of doubt at this time

__________________
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
John Adams

savoir-faire

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

savoir-faire

P/N

Yeah, this brings credibility to your argument

__________________
Have you ever wondered if your mom kissed you goodnight after giving your dad a blow job? You are now.

P/N

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