Lancet-go-round

Obviously, if the American and British governments -- or conservative think tanks and media outlets -- genuinely feel that the Hopkins team's methods were unsound, there's an obvious solution available to them: Design a method for a different comprehensive study of Iraqi mortality and fund its implementation.

There was already a "different comprehensive study" of Iraqi mortality done, by the UN Development Program. It used a far greater number of clusters (approximately 10x as many as Lancet I). And it found a death rate quite a bit lower than the Lancet I's death rate.

You are wrong Al. The UN study you mention did not measure the same things the Lancet study did.

if the American and British governments -- or conservative think tanks and media outlets -- genuinely feel

See, there's your problem, right there. The set for which the value of that condition is "true" is a null set.

I don't think it's fair to Al to say he's "wrong," though of course he is. Nor is it fair to say he's lying, though of course he is.

What makes Al the World's Greatest Hack isn't that he lies all the time. It's that he lies all the times, he's completely conscious he's lying, and he's also completely conscious that just about everyone knows he's lying.

Not many people can endure that type of degredation under any circumstances, much less day in and day out the way Al does. In his own field -- that of plumbling the depths of self-abasement and humiliation in service of the greater Cause -- he's a genuine genius.

anent first 2 responses:

... and, obviously, Lancet I was the earlier study. And irrelevant. Lots of people have died since then. The question is "How Many?"

You are wrong Al. The UN study you mention did not measure the same things the Lancet study did.

Yes, they did.

The UN found that there were 24,000 "war-related" deaths in the relevant period.

Lancet found that there were 100,000 excess deaths, all of which resulted from violence.

To the extent that "war-related" deaths means something different than excess deaths from violence, then, yes, the two studies measured different things. IMO, though, war-related deaths and excess deaths from violence are the basically the same.

The UNDP study is non-biased and professional. The Lancet is based on tendentious methodology and of a piece with the 2004 study released by the same left-biased group, coincidentally [?] just before the 2004 election.

The Lancet study is classic leftist agitprop and disinformation. The UNDP study is straightforward and unbiased.

And the Iraqi Body Count project has a tally of 50,000 deaths, under the following restrictions:

1) Civilians
2) Killed by violence
3) Covered by Media
4) Covered by English-language media
5) At least two such reports, to 'confirm' a death

Since, as the article in the Lancet references, local media coverage in civil wars starts at 50% of deaths, and works it's way down to (generally) 20%, it's clear that the *minimum* number of *civilians killed by violence* is 205,000.

With that figure, the figures from the Lancet article (for all deaths, from all causes) are not unexpected, and are far, far more credible than any other numbers.

Gabriel,

What did I tell you? Lesser hacks than Al would have a difficult time lying as brazenly and repeatedly as Al does here, particularly when he understands almost everyone reading will know he's lying.

For instance, "daveinboca" is clearly just a garden variety idiot, and has no idea why what he says is so stupid. And if you could explain it to him, he would stop; most people just have a hard time lying like that. But Al does understand how deeply stupid and false what he says is. And I get the strong impression that the more stupid and false something is, the more he enjoys saying it. The more he has to publicly humiliate himself, the more it shows he loves Big Brother.

To be fair, Lancet 1 did allow for a value of 24000 in its confidence interval. It's 1.63 sigma off the mean, if I remember the mean correctly (I used 96000. I'm rather confident in my lower bound of 8000 -- I guess I could look it up... Nah. I'm close enough.)

Actually, at the time it was produced and created such controversy, I recall our gracious host arguing that the truly significant thing that came out of Lancet 1 was that the excess death rate was not 0 with any likely probability. In a twisted way, it's charming to think that there was a time where anyone would feel the need to argue against the idea that the war hadn't resulted in excess deaths. Now, we're arguing about which 6-digit number is right.

So what to do about Lancet 2? I tend to think of things this way... The actual number of "excess deaths" (whatever the definition) is a true number, not a random variable. The random variable here is the survey -- given that there actually were the number of excess deaths that there were, what are the chances of conducting a survey that came up with the numbers that they did? For 400000 excess deaths, sure, I suppose it's possible, although by the numbers "unlikely." But how far do you want to push it? 300000? 200000? Less and less likely, and still morally tenuous with respect to thinking any of it is acceptable.

It's become pretty clear that the sole argument of those who question the Lancet study is "it must be wrong because the numbers just can't be that high'. Anyone who actually understands statistics and epidemiology generally accepts the results (e.g. the folks at www.stats.org at GMU, who aren't generally considered shills for the left). It seems as if people just can't face the moral and humanitarian implications of a war that they championed. The number 600000 is just so awesome (in the true sense of the word, not its X games-ish current bastardization). It's such a staggering indication of the catastrophe that was unleased on Iraq and it boggles people's minds.

The thing is, it shouldn't. That's what war does. It tears societies to pieces and causes indiscriminate death. In the most recent issue of Vanity Fair, William Langewiesche had an article about the Haditha massacre and the most striking thing about it was the fact that the current American approach in Iraq, with its focus on force protection, means that the Haditha incident was perceived as nothing unusual by the Marine chain of command. The US military is operating with a serious disregard for civilian casualties. I think that Haditha is probably an exception in that the civilian casualties were deliberate but the focus on force protection and air strikes means that civilian casualties are guaranteed.

So back to the Lancet study. It highlights what people just don't want to acknowledge. This war has brutalized the Iraqi people, with some of that brutalization coming directly from the hands of American troops. Even anti-war Americans who "support the troops" don't want to recognize that; it's just too much of a deviation from their self image of Americans as the good guys.

what are the chances of conducting a survey that came up with the numbers that they did?

95%

People pretending to quote the Lancet I study really ought to quote the Lancet I study. For example, the Lancet I study provided a large range of possible deaths within a statistical degree of certainty not a single number. The range itself was so large to be innocuously true. Yet, spittle flew anyway.

What has happened since the Lancet study came out is a disgrace: we created conditions that were far worse than the status quo. With no end or diminution in sight. That's iatrogenic disease like Grandma used to make.

95%

Uh, no.

I can see it now: a new category of civilian deaths in Iraq for those conducting studies on the civilian death toll in Iraq. Who will study the studiers?

btw, the lancet study does not limit itself to violent deaths; indeed, one point the study makes is that the rates of non-violent death are more or less consistent with pre-war totals.

the single best discussion of the study i've seen is this account that reuters provided, written by (and i quote): Francesco Checchi, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, looks at the lambasting a new report on Iraq deaths has got from hostile governments. He has worked on mortality surveys in Angola, Darfur, Thailand and Uganda, and written a publication "Interpreting and using mortality data in humanitarian emergencies" for the Humanitarian Practice Network.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm

Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

See, a survey that asks 'Is Al a lying fuck?' is different from a survey that asks 'Is Al a pathetic tool?' While Al is both a lying fuck and a pathetic tool, the two are not cognate. But Al, being in addition an ignorant scrote, wouldn't know that.

I refuse to believe that a highly respected, refereed, journal like the Lancet would publish anything that amounts to wild speculation.

"I refuse to believe that a highly respected, refereed, journal like the Lancet would publish anything that amounts to wild speculation."

You should look up the Lancet's role in the autism-vaccine scare if you believe that.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

thanksss

youtube

Good jobs.Thanks.

Yetişkin Forum
Adult Forum
Fetish Forum
BDSM Forum
Lezbiyen Bisexual Gay
Lesbiga
Watch Video
Video İzle Komedi
Sigarayı Bırakın

http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/

mirc

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

penis büyütücü