Debunking the Lancet Report

[KenMac]

Most efficient invasion in history?

1975 invasion of Spratly Islands by South Vietnam

The invasion took place when all the Philippine soldiers guarding the Song Tu Tay left the island to attend to the birthday party of their commanding officer who is based in nearby Northeast Cay (Philippines call it Parola Island). The storm that day is also believed to have persuaded all the soldiers to regroup temporarily in Northeast Cay. A report also came out saying that South Vietnamese officials managed to send Vietnamese prostitutes to the birthday party to lure the Filipino soldiers guarding Song Tu Tay. It was said to be a "present" to the Philippine commander for his birthday and as a move of South Vietnamese forces to befriend all Filipino soldiers guarding the Spratlys. Philippine soldiers did not expect that South Vietnam would do a foul play especially because both Philippines and South Vietnam, together with United States, are allies in the Vietnam War. This tactic is believed to be the reason behind on why South Vietnamese forces knew that the Filipino soldiers left the island, an action that is usually carried confidentially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Cay

[Bluesman]

Heh.

The only thing that's died in huge numbers is the lefties' faith that if they only told enough lies, they could defeat the US military in Iraq.

Vindication: it's what's for DINNER, baby.

Nondisclosure Cited in Iraq Casualties Study
Controversial Survey Author Rebuked for Failing to Disclose Details of His Work
By GARY LANGER
Feb. 4, 2009


In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.

AAPOR, in a statement, said that in an eight-month investigation, Gilbert Burnham, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on civilian deaths in Iraq."

Hours later, the school itself disclosed its own investigation of the Iraq casualties report "to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred." It said the review "is nearing completion."

Both AAPOR and the school said they had focused on Burnham's study, published in the October 2006 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet, reporting an estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. An earlier, 2004 report, in which Burnham also participated, estimated approximately 98,000 excess deaths to that point.

In its original news release on the 2006 study, the Lancet said, "The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations." Today, Tony Kirby, the Lancet's press officer, said in an e-mail to ABC News: "The Lancet is making no comment."

Burnham did not reply to e-mail and telephone messages.

AAPOR's standards committee chair, Mary E. Losch, said the association, acting on a member's complaint, had formally requested from Burnham "basic information about his survey, including, for example, the wording of questions he used, instructions and explanations that were provided to respondents, and a summary of the outcomes for all households selected as potential participants in the survey."

Losch said Burnham gave some partial answers but "explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research."

Burnham is not a member of AAPOR, a 2,200-member professional organization of public opinion and other survey researchers in the United States. It last levied a charge of ethics violation for non-disclosure 12 years ago against public opinion researcher Frank Luntz.

Both Iraq casualty studies were widely debated at the time of their release, shortly before U.S. elections. The 2004 report was released Oct. 29, just before that year's presidential election; an Associated Press report at the time said the lead author, Les Roberts, had described himself as anti-war and said he'd insisted the study be released in advance of the election to prompt debate on the subject. The 2006 lead author, Burnham, said he had no political motivations: "We do this from science."

Questions about the studies have included the sampling approach, the estimate of baseline deaths (necessary to compute an "excess" figure) and the sheer level of deaths reported in 2006, the equivalent of more than 500 a day for more than three years, far outstripping other estimates.

In AAPOR's statement, its president, Richard A. Kulka, said: "When researchers draw important conclusions and make public statements and arguments based on survey research, then subsequently refuse to answer even basic questions about how their research was conducted, this violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research."

The inquiry by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School was disclosed in an e-mail from Tim Parsons, the school's public affairs director, as follows:

"The level of civilian mortality in Iraq is a controversial subject. Questions have been raised regarding the findings and methodology of the 2006 Iraq mortality study conducted by Dr. Gilbert Burnham and published in The Lancet. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health takes any allegation of scientific or professional misconduct very seriously. It believes that the correct forum for discussing the reported findings of the Lancet study and the general methodology that led to those findings is in the regular exchange of views in the scientific literature. The Bloomberg School of Public Health has undertaken a review of the study to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred in the conduct of the study. That review is nearing completion and the school is unable to discuss the results at this time."

Parsons added: "The American Association for Public Opinion Researchers (sic) chose to criticize Dr. Burnham for failure to fully cooperate with the organization's review of his 2006 study. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is not a member of the organization and does not know what procedures or standards were followed in reaching the decision regarding this study and therefore is not in a position to comment on the decision."

Parsons declined to specify what initiated the school's review, or when it began.

Full disclosure: Gary Langer is a member of AAPOR and past president of its New York chapter.



Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Parihaka]

Heh.

The only thing that's died in huge numbers is the lefties' faith that if they only told enough lies, they could defeat the US military in Iraq.

Vindication: it's what's for DINNER, baby.

Excellent. Rest assured, I'll be putting it to good use.

[astralis]

LOL, that took long enough.

[Parihaka]

LOL, that took long enough.

They're only investigating now they know it's a dead issue politically.

[mkenny]

They're only investigating now they know it's a dead issue politically.

Yes the salient point is it is an investigation. It has not 'discredted' the report itself. Thus all the right wing carping is a bit premature.

One wonders why their is so much paranoia over civilian deaths. Take the latest example from Afghanistan.

A British NATO Officer has been charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act.
His crime was..............
Releasing sensitive information on Civilian deaths!
Why is that a secret?
How are the number of dead civilians a Military Secret?
Maybe there is a reason NATO is hiding the totals.....I mean if the other side killed them surely it should be publicised as an example of their ruthlesness?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-colonel.html

[Shek]

Yes the salient point is it is an investigation. It has not 'discredted' the report itself. Thus all the right wing carping is a bit premature.

You're right, the investigation doesn't discredit the report since it's already been discredited. You can't take away that which doesn't exist to begin with.

[mkenny]

You're right, the investigation doesn't discredit the report since it's already been discredited. You can't take away that which doesn't exist to begin with.

Really?
You know in advance what the outcome of the following will be?

The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.

The Bloomberg School of Public Health has undertaken a review of the study to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred in the conduct of the study. That review is nearing completion and the school is unable to discuss the results at this time."

[Shek]

Really?
You know in advance what the outcome of the following will be?

The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.

The Bloomberg School of Public Health has undertaken a review of the study to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred in the conduct of the study. That review is nearing completion and the school is unable to discuss the results at this time."

The reports were discredited long before this recent news came to light. I don't know what they'll find in terms of the ethics investigation, but it's irrelevant to the empirics of the matter. The study doesn't withstand scrutiny in this respect.

[Parihaka]

Yes the salient point is it is an investigation. It has not 'discredted' the report itself. Thus all the right wing carping is a bit premature.

No, the report had already been discredited by the UN, via it's organisation the W.H.O.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...93.html?sub=AR

with a then estimate of 150,000, 500,000 thousand less than Burnham et al.
This current investigation is simply the ivory tower putting the boot in now there's no longer money to be made.

[mkenny]

with a then estimate of 150,000, 500,000 thousand less than Burnham et al.
This current investigation is simply the ivory tower putting the boot in now there's no longer money to be made.

151,000 in 3 years as opposed to a US calculation of 40,000 over 2 years.
I wonder how the latest study is to be discredited for not sticking to the (never to be released)'official' figures.
One can only ask why don't the Iraqi's release the figures. Does anyone know why there seems to be a reluctance to settle the issue?

[Shek]

151,000 in 3 years as opposed to a US calculation of 40,000 over 2 years.
I wonder how the latest study is to be discredited for not sticking to the (never to be released)'official' figures.

Strawman and comparing apples to oranges.

One can only ask why don't the Iraqi's release the figures. Does anyone know why there seems to be a reluctance to settle the issue?

They were releasing figures until it became a big political fuss and then they declined to release them (not to mention that it was a Sadr controlled organization, and so there is some margin of error to built in to these reports). However, even at the height of the sectarian violence, that rate of death extrapolated across the entire post-war period wouldn't have added up to the Roberts et al study numbers. Plus, there was not a MoH able to tally and release figures for much of the period of the Roberts et al studies and the study published in the NEJM.

[JOgershok]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6099020.stm;) Hi Shek,


regarding the arguments exchanged in the thread you provided here are some ansers from the authors of the report:

Dead Wrong Data

Dead Wrong Data
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Iraq: A shocking number from a study about the extent of civilian deaths during the war got a lot of attention. Too bad that further evidence indicating the figure is wildly inaccurate will go largely unnoticed.

Read More http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...18815414401740

[mkenny]

They were releasing figures until it became a big political fuss and then they declined to release them (not to mention that it was a Sadr controlled organization, and so there is some margin of error to built in to these reports).

So then you say that everyone else is manipulating the figures except the US Military. They simply are witholding any official figures because they fear they will be misused.

However, even at the height of the sectarian violence, that rate of death extrapolated across the entire post-war period wouldn't have added up to the Roberts et al study numbers

And the counter is that nearly all the other studies come up with totals far in excess of the 'unoficial' Official count.

Plus, there was not a MoH able to tally and release figures for much of the period of the Roberts et al studies and the study published in the NEJM.

Of course, that must be it. It is a pity the 'same' problems are preventing the release of civilian death totals in Afghanistan. Perish the thought that it is a deliberate tactic to lessen the negative impact of too many Wedding Parties being hit. I would say the figures would be useful in gauging the effect of such attacks. If it is as claimed(attacks on groups of 100+ plus people crowded together resulting in around 10 deaths) then something is seriously wrong with the killing zone of such weapons.

[Shek]

So then you say that everyone else is manipulating the figures except the US Military. They simply are witholding any official figures because they fear they will be misused.

And the counter is that nearly all the other studies come up with totals far in excess of the 'unoficial' Official count.

Of course, that must be it. It is a pity the 'same' problems are preventing the release of civilian death totals in Afghanistan. Perish the thought that it is a deliberate tactic to lessen the negative impact of too many Wedding Parties being hit. I would say the figures would be useful in gauging the effect of such attacks. If it is as claimed(attacks on groups of 100+ plus people crowded together resulting in around 10 deaths) then something is seriously wrong with the killing zone of such weapons.

First: Warning - you need to actually read posts directed at you and then respond after having done research on your own. In this case, all you need to do is to actually read the article and the reports that you are using in your own posts. Also, don't develop strawmen (creating arguments that were not made by another poster in that poster's name) - this is trolling.

Second: Weapons have some random effects. 10 people killed out of a 100, depending on the specific weapon and terrain could have been par for the course.