Deaths in Iraq

[Patroklos]

So you do not know whether the data were released to The Lancet for review?

You quite kindly provided an article that not only says it wasn't, but that it still isn't now. Thanks

 

[Ecofarm]

You realize that the 650,000 isn't from American forces, right? It's supposed to represent all the people who've died in that time, from all sources -- the vast majority of which are the result of the civil war. I.e., bombings, murders, beheadings, &c. You raise a ton of good points against the assertion that American forces could have caused 650,000 deaths, but that's missing the mark. The report simply doesn't claim that Americans killed 650,000 civilians. That would be absurd.

Welcome to the sane people's club.

Now, enjoy the show as in coming days, weeks, and months people repeatedly (sometimes even the SAME people) propose that the US has killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians. The report has never been brought into a conversation on the basis that it shows how many people have died, total, in Iraq since the war. It is always introduced as American damage - sometimes even implying that it excludes intended military targets, thus pushing Iraqis killed by the US towards 7 figures.

Next time, how about you point that flaw out, because I'm sick of doing it - especially for the same people time and time again.

When I say the report was discredited, I mean so in this sense:

The data was collected with a politial agenda. Soros secretely paid for the report and this was not discovered/revealed until the report had been out for awhile. The report is always used to declare Iraqis killed by the US. It's written to allow that misconstrueing intentionally - remember - Soros paid for it.

CBS News called the report a "new and stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in Iraq." CNN began its report this way: "War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis, or more than 500 people a day, since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports." Within a week, the study had been featured in 25 news shows and 188 articles in U.S. newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.

Riyadh Lafta [was] to recruit and oversee researchers who could conduct field surveys in Iraq.

Lafta had been a child-health official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of health when the ministry was trying to end the international sanctions against Iraq by asserting that many Iraqis were dying from hunger, disease, or cancer caused by spent U.S. depleted-uranium shells remaining from the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In 2000, Lafta authored at least two brief articles contending that U.N. sanctions had caused many deaths by starvation among Iraqi children. In one article, he identified malnutrition as the main contributor to 53 percent of deaths among hospitalized children younger than 2, during a 1997 survey carried out at Saddam Central Teaching Hospital. The article cited no health data from before the sanctions, yet it asserted, "We can conclude from results that the most important and widespread underlying cause of the deterioration of child-health standards in Iraq is the long-term impact of the nonhumanized economic sanction imposed through United Nations resolutions."

Soros, who gave more than $20 million to prevent President Bush's re-election, contributed $45,000 of the $145,000 that was spent on the study, the National Journal disclosed.

The study, which The Lancet, a British medical journal, published three weeks before the midterm elections, made major headlines around the world with claims that some 650,000 Iraqis died in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the ensuing chaos.

Two of the study's co-authors told the National Journal that they opposed the war and submitted their findings to Lancet with the insistence that it appear before the election.

Still, the authors have declined to provide the surveyors' reports and forms that might bolster confidence in their findings. Customary scientific practice holds that an experiment must be transparent -- and repeatable -- to win credence. Submitting to that scientific method, the authors would make the unvarnished data available for inspection by other researchers. Because they did not do this, citing concerns about the security of the questioners and respondents, critics have raised the most basic question about this research: Was it verifiably undertaken as described in the two Lancet articles?

For more detailed information on the joke that this report is...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm



Discredited - (adj.) See above.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Patroklos,

Oh really? Where in the article does it say that? It says that the data were not released to other sources. It doesn't say anything about withholding the data from the reviewing publisher.

So let's try it again: do you know that the data were withheld from The Lancet?

Cleo

 

[skadistic]

Patroklos,

So you do not know whether the data were released to The Lancet for review?

skadistic,

That's a valid criticism of the coverage of the study. I think it arises from the fact that the deaths are portrayed "as a result of the invasion," which could cause confusion. They should have done a better job making that clear. And again, if you think it's still too high, that's fine. I'm not arguing that you should believe it. But it has not been "discredited."

Cleo

Except its been discredited by another study using a larger pool and the same method. One that didn't take cluster samples from only the areas where the most bombings and fighting took place. You know one that that surveyed a larger sample from more more cluster packs in more areas.

Its like taking the first study in only Baltimore MD, Philly PA and Trenton NJ and extrapolation that to cover the whole US. Then taking another and adding in Brick NJ, Simi Vally CA, Boca Ratone FL, El Paso TX, Fargo ND, Ellensburg WA, Dover DE, Tuscalousa AL, Wilke-barre PA, Levetton NY, Vale CO, and podunk OK.

 

[Patroklos]

Again, from your own article, and the only time it mentions the release of data at publication is when they specifically say it wasn't released to anyone other than the researchers themselves.

"At the time, the Iraqi members of the team—including the data collectors—requested that the data not be released, fearing that the neighborhoods surveyed could be in some way be identified from the data. The concern was that possible retributions might be made by various parties in the on-going conflict in Iraq. As the lead investigators of the study, we chose to respect those concerns."

How much more sad does it get than that. Oh yeah, when they finally did release data, probably because them not having done so was making them a laughing stock, they only released it to people they wanted. Or in other words people who wouldn't debunk it. No peer review was conducted prior to publication, and one still hasn't been conducted. Again, awesome :b:

 

[I'm Cleo!]

skadistic,

Another study showed lower numbers, yes. Let's hope that study's right. But it doesn't mean that the first study is "discredited."

Perhaps you don't know how science works. The data from the first study still exists. Unless you can show that something was wrong with the study (and you haven't, no matter how frequently you assert that you have; no one has, since epidemiologists and statisticians have stated that the study was sound); it's still data that has to be accounted for. You can't just throw out studies because you think the results are weird or anomalous or differ from other studies. You have to show how the study was flawed.

To which you'll respond: "It was flawed because some guy in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages said that 47 clusters of 40 households each isn't enough." To which I'll respond: "The statistical accuracy of using 47 clusters is described in the article itself, which notes that the potential deaths likely range from 393,000 to 943,000 excess deaths."

You can say that the new study suggests that the numbers may be lower than The Lancet report's findings, but the report has not been "discredited."

Cleo

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Patroklos,

Now you're just making things up:

No peer review was conducted prior to publication, and one still hasn't been conducted.

This is bizarre. There's no point to continue this discussion.

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

Ok, Cleo. How about this:

No open and public peer review was conducted. 99.9% of journal articles are done that way. Further, it is strange that the data is not included in the published article.

Third, the guy who collected the data for the team IS A KNOWN HACK.

Also, the guy who funded it is a known hack.

Also, demands were made by researchers regarding publication pre-elections.

Also, the data is still not available to the public.

Also, the methods used are questionable and designed for a different setting.

How much evidence of BS do you need before you stop accepting ALL journal articles as gospel?

Sadly, the piece has always been presented as US caused casualities. And not just by CBS. Look at posts in this thread, or any other here at CFC. And the same posters will do it again.

 

[skadistic]

skadistic,

Another study showed lower numbers, yes. Let's hope that study's right. But it doesn't mean that the first study is "discredited."

Perhaps you don't know how science works. The data from the first study still exists. Unless you can show that something was wrong with the study (and you haven't, no matter how frequently you assert that you have; no one has, since epidemiologists and statisticians have stated that the study was sound); it's still data that has to be accounted for. You can't just throw out studies because you think the results are weird or anomalous or differ from other studies. You have to show how the study was flawed.

To which you'll respond: "It was flawed because some guy in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages said that 47 clusters of 40 households each isn't enough." To which I'll respond: "The statistical accuracy of using 47 clusters is described in the article itself, which notes that the potential deaths likely range from 393,000 to 943,000 excess deaths."

You can say that the new study suggests that the numbers may be lower than The Lancet report's findings, but the report has not been "discredited."

Cleo

Actually I have shown that the first study is flawed several times flaws as glaring as these discredit the report. You own words shows its flawed. I underlined them. But thats not the only flaw. The other being where the clusters were taken. I even gave an analogy. See those numbers are that high because of where the clusters were taken and in such low numbers of cluster. Its like the difference between polling 30 people in NYC and 3000 people across the nation. Maybe you just don't understand how that works.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

This discussion is completely pointless. The blind assertion that no peer review was conducted is just being thrown about willy-nilly with no evidence in support of it. The people seeking to "discredit" the report have repeatedly made assertions that are demonstrably false, and after they backtrack from their original statements, others come and make the same ones. I'm quite confident that anyone reading this discussion can see who's acquitted themselves more reliably.

This is more than a typical "butting heads" internet political discussion, it's literally bizarre.

Cleo

 

[holy king]

This discussion is completely pointless. The blind assertion that no peer review was conducted is just being thrown about willy-nilly with no evidence in support of it. The people seeking to "discredit" the report have repeatedly made assertions that are demonstrably false, and after they backtrack from their original statements, others come and make the same ones. I'm quite confident that anyone reading this discussion can see who's acquitted themselves more reliably.

This is more than a typical "butting heads" internet political discussion, it's literally bizarre.

Cleo

and its been going on for pages now... i admire your patience

 

[Ecofarm]

This discussion is completely pointless. The blind assertion that no peer review was conducted is just being thrown about willy-nilly with no evidence in support of it. The people seeking to "discredit" the report have repeatedly made assertions that are demonstrably false, and after they backtrack from their original statements, others come and make the same ones. I'm quite confident that anyone reading this discussion can see who's acquitted themselves more reliably.

This is more than a typical "butting heads" internet political discussion, it's literally bizarre.

Cleo

I can't believe that you are actually going to pretend that this study is legit. If the US government made a similar study with radically low numbers and used known political hacks and refused to release data, you would be all over them.

I hope that you can at least be counted on to rebutt people who claim the US caused 650,000 deaths since the invasion even if you dogmatically hold to this hackery being actual research.

Try googling: lancet discredited. This isn't the journal's first indiscretion.

 

[Patroklos]

Now you're just making things up:

Or in other words, even though you are confronted with direct quotes from YOUR OWN article saying specifically that 1.) the data wasn't released for review at publication and 2.) still hasn't been released for public review to this date you unwilling to accept that you were wrong.

To avoid this sort of backfire in the future, read your articles beforehand.

 

[brennan]

I think i'll use the Skadistic method:

No open and public peer review was conducted. 99.9% of journal articles are done that way. Further, it is strange that the data is not included in the published article.Actually peer review is undertaken with a certain amount of anonymity. I've never heard of an 'open and public' peer review myself.

Third, the guy who collected the data for the team IS A KNOWN HACK.proof please. And then you can tell us what is actually wrong with the data.

Also, the guy who funded it is a known hack. proof please and then (see above)...

Also, demands were made by researchers regarding publication pre-elections. a) so what? b) This was done apparently to avoid the work becoming politicised. Some people are never happy.

Also, the data is still not available to the public. so what?

Also, the methods used are questionable and designed for a different setting. Wrong. Show me a reputable source actually questioning the methodology.

How much evidence of BS do you need before you stop accepting ALL journal articles as gospel?

Sadly, the piece has always been presented as US caused casualitiesDon't be ridiculous. And not just by CBS. Look at posts in this thread, or any'other here at CFC. And the same posters will do it again.

Actually I have shown that the first study is flawed several times No, you have stated this several times. Hardly the same thing. flaws as glaring as these discredit the report. You own words shows its flawed. I underlined them. Oh no! An error margin, we don't expect those in scientific reports ! But thats not the only flawOr indeed, a flaw at all. The other being where the clusters were taken. I even gave an analogy. See those numbers are that high because of where the clusters were taken and in such low numbers of cluster. Its like the difference between polling 30 people in NYC and 3000 people across the nation AFAIK 2000 odd people is usually considered satisfactory for a national survey actually. Maybe you just don't understand how that works.Well someone certainly doesn't.

 

[Ecofarm]

1) You want proof? Look higher on page 14. I'm not playing the "you haven't proved anything" game.

2) I'm being ridiculous? People here at CFC regularly pretend the 650k are casualities of war.

Iraqis civilian death 81,328 – 88,783

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

This is according to a conservative estimate and some even estimate a death toll of 655,000. According to Bush in 2006. the death toll was 30,000.

Do you know what death toll means? It doesn't mean death by old age and accidents.

 

[brennan]

1) 2) I'm being ridiculous? People here at CFC regularly pretend the 650k are casualities of war.

Odd that, what with the invasion and subsequent chaos.

 

[Ecofarm]

Yea, here's another:

Spoiler :

This is preposterous. How many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by US warplanes, cruise missiles, firefights, collateral damage, raids and "surges" before and during the civil war broke out? How many innocent Iraqi civilians died in the overall conflict as a result of the US presence there in the first place?

(Answer: a lot - estimated to be over 600,000, and as high as 1 million.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)
(http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story) )

Should Murtha apologize - yeah, probably. But who gives half a care specifically which of those 600,000-1,000,000 killings was premeditated or malicious or accidental or in cold blood or friendly fire or murder. Whatever the motivation, US soldiers are in Iraq, and because of that, many civilians have died, period.

I think that anybody who is more concerned that a comment that may "besmirch the troops" than the loss of 600,000 innocent lives itself needs their head checked.

K.

And another:

Spoiler :

Nevertheless?

What does any of that have to do with anything? In case you didn't know hundreds of thousands iraqis have been killed in the past 6 years, thats not a crime?

At least you read the whole thing. Obviously you were the only one here.

Supported by

Spoiler :

Lancet.

Ten characters.

AND ANOTHER:

Spoiler :

It's also not just about the individual Marine, it's about the Corp as a whole.They use outdated machinery,there equipment in general is outdated planes/choppers/tanks/transports compared to the army equivalent.

Like I said, the Marine Corp simply doesn't have the budget the Army does so they sacrifice certain things.

I will say one thing, they used "White Phosphorus" brilliantly in retaking fullujah.. right after they lost control of it, which was right after the Army Airborne handed control over to the Marine Corp.

Thats a Chemical Weapon, which could be considered a "War Crime" I mean they had to completely blanket a city in a Chemical Weapon just to retake it.. Right after the Army gave control of it over.... to the Marine Corp...

People wonder where that 700,000 Civilian death toll comes from that they conveniently don't report in mainstream media, within the U.S. that is.

How many did Hitler kill again..?

And another one (maybe not that one - had to track source):

Spoiler :

So were we justified in using the previous and current levels of force in Iraq, despite the absence of WMDs and no direct terror threat?



Really? So 655,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of this war must have been due to the violent 1% accomplishing their mission?



Close enough to where I did not change the meaning of his post by the use of a slightly different choice in words.

And another:

Spoiler :

Last I looked Iraqis were human. I've read that about 100 000- 600 000 people have died in Iraq and there are around 2 million refugees.

If that was America based on % of population it would be approx.

1.2 Million-7.2 Million dead
24 Million refugees

Just under 3000 Americans died in 9/11 and I'm not sure what the current casualty figures for the military is.

Thas what America has done to Iraq (which had sod all to do with 9/11). Hypothetically reversing the situation have another look at the American casualty figures. How many Americans would fight for their country if was invaded but the insurgents get called terrorists (some of them are).

Can I stop there? I think I've proven my point that people use that stat on CFC as war casualities ALOT.

 

[skadistic]

No, you have stated this several times. Hardly the same thing.And my statements show it. I can't help it if you don't understand.

Oh no! An error margin, we don't expect those in scientific reports !An error margin almost 100%? No we don't. I can't help it if you don't understand.

Or indeed, a flaw at all.Really so extrapulating data from such a small pool and coming up with numbers between 300k and 900k isn't a flaw? Some thing isn't right there. Not a very sound outcome. Thus its flawed. I can't help it if you don't understand.

AFAIK 2000 odd people is usually considered satisfactory for a national survey actuallyOf random people. These people weren't random. The poll was small and the people polled were in areas that scewed the numbers You can look at my anology earlier for an explanation. You ask really nice I might draw you a picture since words are to hard for you. I can't help it if you don't understand.

Well someone certainly doesn't.Yes you. I can't help it if you don't understand.

 

[Ecofarm]

Skad. Let's give it up. The only way these people would be convinced that the report is a pile of crap is if it was produced by Bill O'Reily and said 20 casualities. Then they'd be ALL OVER the major flaws in this so-called report.

Asking moveon people to give up the Soros 650k stat is like asking a thumper to give up a book of the bible.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The peanutgallery objects to the cancelation of tonight's show. I stood in line for the tickets, I deserve an overtime.

I want my tennismatch debate, and I want it now. Or soon. Soonish. Today would be good.

Now play or this theatre gets it.