Skip to main content

View Diary: One Million-Plus Violent Iraqi Deaths (So Far) (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You've read the Lancet reports ... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but you offer no scientific "critique" of them, and they also claim very high numbers. You claim of "telephone interviews" for the poll - ORB claims face-to-face interviews. Not only the 1 million number, but the 1.2 million number requires less than 750 deaths per day since war started up to point when survey was taken in August, not thousands on a daily basis.

    Once again, I don't own stock in ORB, and I don't have a stake in that poll being accurate. But show me some real criticism based on sampling and non-sampling errors, methodology errors, or logical reasons not to accept the results based on more than the fact that you just don't believe it.

    "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:03:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lancet as bad as this study (0+ / 0-)

      Both Lancet studies have been thoroughly debunked if you are only willing to do a little digging.

      The first used a methodology so flawed that very few serious people gave it a second look.  The second, while done with a bit more control, still suffered from a flawed methodology and amazingly unrealistic assumptions (their assumed death rate prior to the war is far far below every other sources estimate which in turn leads to extremely inflated numbers).

      One of the best analysis of the second study can be found at the IBC site.

      Now some of their methodological issues can be attributed to human error or bad judgment but the fact the Lancet is ideologically opposed to the war to the level where leading members are prominent speakers at anti-war rallies would tend to lead most neutral parties to the conclusion that they intentionally 'cooked the books'.  

      That they've used this second study to try and regain some standing and 'prove' their fatally flawed first one was correct also shows a level of emotional involvement that would normally disqualify them as valid sources.

      On the other hand IBC is also adamantly anti-war but yet they choose to follow a more scientific method to count the dead.  And while their numbers are most likely lower than the actuals (they rely heavily on media and medical reports) even double their confirmed numbers gets you nowhere near either the Lancet or the OPB 'studies'

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site