World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Yirmeyahu · 11-27-2006, 12:41 PM

The first argument is fallacious. Most other estimates are far lower than the one published in the Lancet, and therefore the Lancet study must be "bogus". This as fallacious on its face.

Why the difference? Methodology, plain and simple. Take Iraq Body Count, presently estimated around a minimum of 48,755 civilian deaths. First of all IBC counts only civilian deaths. The "Lancet study" (the study was by the Jons Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, published in the Lancet) estimated total Iraqi deaths, civilian and combatant. IBC counts only deaths reported on in the news media, by at least three sources. Naturally, this means the IBC estimate is extremely conservative. The "Lancet study", on the other hand, used the standard methodology for estimating based on cluster samples, a far more scientific approach, and without question far more accurate.

The low estimates use "bad methodology", not the "Lancet study".

"It is bad practice to use a cluster sample for a distribution known to be highly asymmetrical." It is not "bad practice" to use cluster samples. It's the standard, well-accepted, and widely used methodology for arriving at such estimates.

"18 of the 33 clusters reported zero deaths". That is false.

"Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja" This quote does not come from the report. The only mention of Falluja in the report notes that "Over half of excess deaths recorded in the 2004 study were from violent causes, and about half of the violent deaths occurred in Falluja." Falluja was excluded from the study on account of the high rate of mortality there.

The rest of the "debunking" is follows along the lines if this fabrication, warranting no further response.

11-27-2006, 12:41 PM	#12 (permalink)
Yirmeyahu Banished Regular Join Date: 11-27-06 Posts: 80 Country:	Debunking the Debunking The first argument is fallacious. Most other estimates are far lower than the one published in the Lancet, and therefore the Lancet study must be "bogus". This as fallacious on its face. Why the difference? Methodology, plain and simple. Take Iraq Body Count, presently estimated around a minimum of 48,755 civilian deaths. First of all IBC counts only civilian deaths. The "Lancet study" (the study was by the Jons Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, published in the Lancet) estimated total Iraqi deaths, civilian and combatant. IBC counts only deaths reported on in the news media, by at least three sources. Naturally, this means the IBC estimate is extremely conservative. The "Lancet study", on the other hand, used the standard methodology for estimating based on cluster samples, a far more scientific approach, and without question far more accurate. The low estimates use "bad methodology", not the "Lancet study". "It is bad practice to use a cluster sample for a distribution known to be highly asymmetrical." It is not "bad practice" to use cluster samples. It's the standard, well-accepted, and widely used methodology for arriving at such estimates. "18 of the 33 clusters reported zero deaths". That is false. "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja" This quote does not come from the report. The only mention of Falluja in the report notes that "Over half of excess deaths recorded in the 2004 study were from violent causes, and about half of the violent deaths occurred in Falluja." Falluja was excluded from the study on account of the high rate of mortality there. The rest of the "debunking" is follows along the lines if this fabrication, warranting no further response.