a1d0daf85a0286f8ceb2…

But there are many differences between Comcast Digital Cable and Dish Network….

college drunk chicks stupid drunk girls girls drunk…

The key to understanding this study comes in this sentence:

Sampling followed the same approach used in
2004,8

Their methodology (picking families via geography) allows them to CHERRY PICK their subject families and then claim the results are representative of the entire nation when extrapolated. That was the fault of the 2004 study and is the problem with it now.

I can not prove with certainty that the selection of families (and the neighborhoods they live in) was deliberately designed to result in a pre-selected outcome. I suspect that the neighborhoods were selected to obtain the highest estimates. I suspect this the case given who the authors and the Lancet are and the Lancet’s political point of view.

In addition, unlike other studies in the Lancet, this study does not appear to be refereed. In fact, one of the authors, Les Roberts — who is credited as being the instigator of it – is openly outspoken against the war and is openly left wing. His interview in the Socialst Worker alone ought to disqualify this study as having any validity, especially as the study itself piously and self-righteously claims it has no “conflictis of interest” — I the Lancet is expecting the public to ignore the POLITICAL PREJUDICES of the author and pretend that this isn’t a politically inspired document.

Therefore, the conclusions of this study are wrong as it is an example of circular reasoning bolstered by cherry picked data.

Or as Mark Twain was reputed to have said: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

This is not the first time that statistical studies have been used to achieve a political end. Almost all gun control studies come with built in biases designed to deliver a desired result, for example. The infamous “43 to 1″ study by Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the New England Journal of Medicine being a specific example.

And as about 70% of “studies” reported in the press concerning actual medical topics are contradictory and fall into the realm of “junk science,” this study deserves that appellation as well.

In otherwords, this study is BULLSHIT!

This study is a POLITICAL STATEMENT not a scientific one.

As I noted in a previous post in another thread, the anti-war movement can only succeed if they strike from a “high moral” ground, the highest being human lives lost.

In spite of media hysteria and inflamed rhetoric, American KIA and WIA loses in Iraq and Afghanistan are lower that at any other time in our history, proportionate to the personnel deployed. This result is not an accident given that the Military has labored to increase its efficiency since the All-Volunteer Military program began in the 1970’s. Most Americans understand this, which is why they have achieved almost no traction with the argument.

Therefore, in their attempt to “shame us” into cutting and running in Iraq, the leftists are now reduced yapping about lost IRAQI lives.

Bluntly, I personally do not give a rat’s ass about the exact number of Iraq casualties, as even the study noted that most of them are RED ON RED (caused by other Iraqis).

So, I’ll be a little more blunt and simply say: It’s too damn bad that Iraqis are killing other Iraqis in a RELIGIOUS FEUD that’s about 1400 years old that is being waged by people with a 7th mindset. BUT IT IS NOT AMERICA’S PROBLEM!

This fued wasn’t caused by George W. Bush. It wasn’t caused by the American invasion. It wasn’t caused by the presence of American troops in Iraq, it is caused by SHIITES AND SUNNIS HATING EACH OTHER, something has existed since one bunch of religious wack-jobs murdered the leader of another bunch of wack-jobs back in the 7th Century.

That fact that America is TRYING TO QUELL this violence speaks volumes of OUR MORAL COMPASS AS A NATION and gives us the high moral ground here, not the anti-war left.

The fact that the flames of religious hatred are being fanned by Iran and that Syria’s borders are porous — both of whom are trying to defeat America in Iraq — indicates that America needs to deal with two more terrorist supporting states before this is all over.

In fact, it is inevitable that America confront and destroy the Islamofascists running Iran in order to defeat Islamofascism.

Honora, I’ll save you the trouble of asking. I have a degree in mathematics, and I know what I’m talking about.

The whole Lancet study is underpinned by the claim that 75% of the people they claim are dead are associated with a death certificate. So 3 of 4 within the sample population have a death certificate–which contradicts your statement that 11 in 12 deaths went unreported

No, 3 in 4 of their sample had a DC. NOT the people they claim died.

From looking at the reported numbers and looking at the difference between those and Lancet’s numbers, if we assume that Lancet’s numbers are correct, then we must also assume that only 1 death in 11 was recorded because they only have records for 1/12 of the deaths Lancet projects. Or, that the Iraiqs can’t/won’t count and report them, which you seem to be leaning toward.

And yet, they tell uf that a representative sample can produce a DC in 75% of cases. So, we can’t find the bodies, we can’t find the records, and we can’t find a trend that says the vast majority of reaths aren’t recorded. This is not complicated.

But the notion that the Iraqi “government” completely screws up something like this, no problem at all believing that.

You think they’re incapable of basic record keeping? Why?

honora, is there any evidence that the Ministry can’t/won’t count, or is this entirely conjecture on your part? That seems to be the point of your post. Otherwise, the extrapolation they should have made regarding DCs is that there about 400,000 of them missing.

As for the government numbers? Well are these the same guys that can’t get the electricity back on?
You realize that that’s a silly argument, don’t you?

Pablo

Re-read your message.

Which would tell us that 3 in 4 deaths were reported and death certificates were issued. But according to the Lancet numbers vs. the Iraqi governmemnt numbers, if we’re to believe Lancet’s then 11 in 12 deaths went unreported and were not documented. It doesn’t add up.

The whole Lancet study is underpinned by the claim that 75% of the people they claim are dead are associated with a death certificate. So 3 of 4 within the sample population have a death certificate–which contradicts your statement that 11 in 12 deaths went unreported

per Lancet.

If their projections are right, then there is shortage of death certificates versus the number of dead.

You’re taken the sample info and gov’t info and assigned each to the wrong source.

And my argument re the electricity? It’s not only not silly, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect the Lancet numbers are wrong (or maybe I want them to be wrong). But the notion that the Iraqi “government” completely screws up something like this, no problem at all believing that.

Funny how those hundreds of extra bodies a day just weren’t noticed…

Right, because door to door interviews with Iraqis are the path to truthiness, whereas the Iraqis who actually count the dead bodies and record the deaths must somehow be lying, as they want to keep the true picture from the rest of the world. Or, they’re just too incompetent to add the figures.

It makes no sense.

Not only that, but during the time this “study” was compiled, Iraqi morgues were free to give their mortality figures directly to the press… and they did.

Funny how those hundreds of extra bodies a day just weren’t noticed…

Do you expertise in this area? I ask because your statement 3 posts above makes no sense.

The correct conclusion would be: if Lancet is wrong: the sample size or reporting technique is corrupt OR if Lancet is right: the Ministry doesn’t keep count of the death certificates they issue. (Remmber, Lancet says 75% of the people they reported dead have associated certificates. So according to them, 75% of deaths were reported And based on that and the sample size, they make a projection. The point being, they are not basing their claim on the notion that 11 in 12 deaths go unreported.)

honora, is there any evidence that the Ministry can’t/won’t count, or is this entirely conjecture on your part? That seems to be the point of your post. Otherwise, the extrapolation they should have made regarding DCs is that there about 400,000 of them missing.

As for the government numbers? Well are these the same guys that can’t get the electricity back on?

You realize that that’s a silly argument, don’t you?

365 (days in a year) times 3.5 years = 1277.5, plus … ah heck, lets just say 1300 days. Now …

655000/1300 = 503.846153846153846…

500 deaths per day. Every day. For three and a half years. Plus almost a month.

And the MSM, which wets itself when a bomb kills 20+ in one swoop, didn’t say anything about this???

I call bullshit. Long, loud and clear.

Which is preferable?

600,000 dead sadistic bloodthirsty jihadists?

or

20,000 dead sadistic bloodthirsty jihadists?

And for the purpose of this question you’re not allowed to answer with some French theory that it would be preferable to offer more dialogue and negotiation in place of any dead.

Just answer the question with the choices given.

Surely not all of them “had it coming to them”.

How do you know that to be true? Are you just guessing? Assuming? What are you basing that on? Have you spent time in Iraq during the war? Do you personally know Iraqi dead who you know were sweet innocent victims?

Whatever the number of dead in Iraq might be, it is my “opinion” that the overwhelming majority were PROBABLY the enemy, which means they “had it coming.”

I’m sure that most of you don’t think we have reached the slaughterhouse point yet, but is there a point when enough is enough? And if so, where is that number?

GregH, what’s your solution? We aren’t killing most of those people. Do you think if we were to say “we’ve reached the slaughterhouse point” and leave things wouldn’t get worse? Smarten up. By the way, I don’t accept your premise in the first place because I believe the number is much closer to 50k.

For some reason, Lancet has not released an appendix (or I have not seen it) with the survey instrument as part of it. Knowing which questions were asked would help determine part of that, I think.

Personally, I think the sample was flawed, and that’s the reason for the poor results.

Slublog on October 12, 2006 at 11:41 AM

You can find the appendices on the CNN website, in the middle of the story there’s a link, couldn’t copy it for some reason.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

oops.

The now throughly discredited study they ran linking MMR shots to autism, created a pervasive and on-going myth. MMR shots have now fallen to 40%

They’ve created at least one public health threat.

I trust them about as much as I trust tobacco company doctors.

This idea of an antiseptic war is the pipedream of desk jockeys and politicians. Until we get the stomach of our forefathers for the violence germane to war and take this fight outside the politically correct box it has been put in by the international community we will continue to be our own worst enemy.

Alden Pyle on October 12, 2006 at 9:55 AM

I would agree that the numbers seem outrageously high – probably too high to be accurate. I’d be surprised if the number were anywhere north of 250,000.

But is 250,000 even an acceptable number? That’s a LOT of people. Surely not all of them “had it coming to them”. What percentage of them are civilians?

What is an acceptable number of dead? Where is the point that it is no longer a “just” war, and becomes a slaughterhouse?

I’m sure that most of you don’t think we have reached the slaughterhouse point yet, but is there a point when enough is enough? And if so, where is that number?

Surely not everybody in here echo’s Gregor’s sentiment of

the higher the number, the better.
GregH on October 12, 2006 at 2:17 PM

I think it was Stalin who said “10 dead men are a tragedy, 10,000 dead men are a statistic”. Or something like that. We lack the capacity to grasp what this really means in terms of flesh and blood, somebody’s Dad, somebody’s son.

GregH, anyting, below zero

Hey man I just put 30 bodies in the ground today that makes uh 400 this month crap that is alot!

The MSM itself is orgasming over every body that isn’t breathing read the friggin’ headlines over the last year and add the nuber from the friggin’ head line for crissakes’. The wheels are’t coming off they have friggin’ forgot what wheels are!

This pisses me off so much I might count the headlines. Isn’t there a website that is counting the number of people killed by radical islam around the world since 9/11. My memory sucks but I don’t think their total is that high!

But is 250,000 even an acceptable number? That’s a LOT of people. Surely not all of them “had it coming to them”. What percentage of them are civilians?

What is an acceptable number of dead? Where is the point that it is no longer a “just” war, and becomes a slaughterhouse?

I’m sure that most of you don’t think we have reached the slaughterhouse point yet, but is there a point when enough is enough? And if so, where is that number?

Surely not everybody in here echo’s Gregor’s sentiment of

the higher the number, the better.