There’s this bizarre mythology that the “scientific community” is somehow less prone to corruption or idiocy than any other community, and it just ain’t so.

In fact, a Norwegian scientist and a South Korean scientist have been busted for falsifying data and creating fraudulent research reports over the past few years. Their work was also peer reviewed. It doesn’t help that they’re peer reviewed because peer review most often does not uncover fraudulent data. They rely on good faith and the previous credibility of the scientist who conducted the work.

The methodology in the 2006 study was more sound than the 2004 study, where they used unproven assumptions to cut corners – ones that I intend to prove invalidate the entire study (2004 edition). Read the assumptions used to pair clusters in the 2004 study. I have a fundamental understanding of statistics, and that methodology only flies if the underlying assumptions being made are correct. But there was no evidence provided, other than “belief”, that the assumptions being used were valid.

Numberwatch.co.uk, (enter, number of the month, start reading).

That site focuses mainly on Britain, but that’s just a primer.

The peer review system is officially broken, in the sense that it isn’t even remotely doing what it’s supposed to do.

How much rewiew could there be if they aren’t allowing this information to be released?

There’s peer review, and there’s peer review. When I do studies for the Feds, I have to give them everything they need to take the raw data, process it, and analyze it themselves (using my code) if they want to. In my code I nest sampling commands in other processing steps so that the lists of sampled elements are used immediately and aren’t left lying about for possible messing-around-with. I try to eliminate any opportunity for anyone to question my methods.

I also forgot to add: The irony of the conditions the authors placed on the “release” of data last year — including a no-critics-need-apply rule — is so rich you need a wide-open insulin drip to read them:
http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/

No. 1 is my personal favorite. Roberts’ own views are illegitimate subjects for conversation, but woe be to any on-the-record skeptic who wants to see the numbers (such as they are).

— Lafta, who did the actual survey work, was also employed by the Hussein regime to puff up some numbers to make the sanctions look bad. Remember, this was the regime that employed Baghdad “American troops are not in the city!” Bob. Lafta tellingly refuses to talk about his methods.

— The Sadr City data, where 12 of the 20 households surveyed improbably have exactly 1 death each from a car boming that struck a market used by tens of thousands, is almost certainly fraudulent.

— The Nineveh “heaping” problem indicates fraud was probably perpetrated throughout the data.

— A car bomb that happened after the surveying was supposedly over was also included, again indicating pervasive fraud.

This is about as discredited as a survey can be.

The comments are very telling. I’m the same Mazztek in them as well.

I quote myself here, in response to a libturd who takes the Lancet as gospel:

The Lancet reports are a GUESS. Bases on an EXTRAPOLATION.

If I were to trust anyone, let’s go with Iraq Body Count. They actually COUNT THE BODIES, and provide the proof, that being morgue reports and news reports. As of 10 Dec 2007: 78,141 – 85,128. May Allah rest their souls.

What is really beyond belief is your “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” It’s gone beyond hatred of Bush, and on to America itself. You believe we are evil, and can do no Right. A smear and a lie against America is taken as total truth, blindly so. At least 10 scientists and hundreds of bloggers have said the Lancet is lying, and demanded proof of their findings. The Lancet refuses to provide it. The “world’s premier medical journal” got into the political arena, and came up lacking, refusing to defend itself.

Many people defend The Lancet study by saying its been peer reviewed. How much rewiew could there be if they aren’t allowing this information to be released?

This is why the Lancet ultimately must shoulder the blame. It wasn’t peer reviewed. It went right to press without being peer reviewed on whimsical statements that the very lives of the researchers depended on its publication?

The Lancet took a ridiculous study and put it on the map. It was never reviewed by any peers.

Oh yeah, and George Soros funded the study and it’s not like he hasn’t expressed interest in manufacturing controversy to support his political objectives.

Recall, George Soros, despite being Jewish, was invited to Saudi Arabia(Jeddah) of all places to give a speech advocating the Euro become the petro dollar in order to check the alleged aggression of the United States. That was in 2005.

Remember, George Soros has no influence whatsoever on the value of currency if you ignore how he made his billions with Jim Rogers in the 70s and that brief, but fruitful, bilking of the Bank of England in the 90s.

If a car bomb killed the grocer who sold the best pomegranates in the arab world, everyone who went out of their way to get their pomegranates from him would know about it and the statistical “death toll” would skew upward dramatically as a result.

In summary – DUH!

I tried to explain this once on Kos and it got me banned.

Why not share the data and programs

DrSteve on January 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Many people defend The Lancet study by saying its been peer reviewed. How much rewiew could there be if they aren’t allowing this information to be released?

Reminds me of a quote from Seinfeld:

George: “Remember, Jerry…it’s not a lie, if you believe it.”

CP on January 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM

‘And it’s NOT the truth if I don’t believe it!’

Flawed or lies?

……

I’m an econometrician — and the cluster sampling methodology, at least as described in the paper, is a valid method. Let’s not knock sampling theory or we’re going to have Tim Lambert’s people over here saying we’ve declared war on Mathematics or something.

The main issues are (1) why not share the data and programs, (2) did the use of old population data for the districts skew results (as BR suggested it might), and (3) was the field data collection work actually conducted as described — was the protocol adhered to?

The main guy behind the ILCS survey from FAFO has often criticized Les Roberts’ Lancet study, that it greatly exaggerates the death numbers and is a generally poor study methodically.

George: “Remember, Jerry…it’s not a lie, if you believe it.”

Roberts already believed that jihadi attacks were, in part, driven by the international image of the United States. “The greatest threat to U.S. national security [is] the image that the United States is a violator of international laws and order and that there is no means other than violence to curb it,”

The jihadis routinely violate international law by dressing as civilians, hiding behind civilians, deliberately targeting civilians, using mosques (i.e. buildings for religious use) to store weapons, firing from mosques, and torturing their prisoners. (And I mean real torture, much more severe than waterboarding.) Roberts needs to stop looking at the splinter in the eye of the U.S. and instead notice that giant Sequoia in the eyes of the jihadists.

You know, like a surge or something.

What’s that? Oh, did anyone tell the Democrats?