Lies, Damn lies, and Lancet Studies?
the Lancet, the top British medical journal, has just published a paper claiming that we have caused the deaths of 2.5% of the population of Iraq…
Short of setting concentration camps, or intentionally spreading disease, or carpet bombing cities, I’m not sure that we could do that even if we were trying.
There comes a point in every statistical study when you need to do a sanity check.
“Gee, is it really true that birds can’t fly?”
“Wow! I had no idea that every third Californian is psychotic!”
“At this rate of growth, by the year 2050, every American will be named Miguel!”
I might argue that the Californian comment is provable, but the rest of his post is quite good.
My opinion of the statistics isn’t worth writing when Omar at IRAQ THE MODEL says it so much better.
To me their motives are clear, all they want is to prove that our struggle for freedom was the wrong thing to do. And they shamelessly use lies to do this…when they did not find the death they wanted to see on the ground, they faked it on paper! They disgust me…
This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives.
Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.
h/t Adam’s Blog and Fausta’s blog.
Given that the response says nary a thing about statistics or mathematics — as a criticism of statistics, it is worthless. Maybe it reinforces someone’s political/ideological/ego trip?
Comment by Eideard — October 12, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
If you are referring to my lack of statistical criticism then you are correct. It wasn’t intended to be an analysis of statistics, but rather a curiosity. I thought it interesting both that the report came out, and that it was being quickly criticized. I think that both the report and the criticism are likely politically motivated.
The mortality rate does seem ridiculously high to me though. It would mean somewhere in excess of 16,000 “excess” deaths per month over the course of the study. With the level of reporting and propaganda surrounding this war, I find it hard to believe that this level of death has gone unmentioned by members of either side of the conflict.
If the carpet bombing of Germany for two years killed approximately 300,000 German citizens, then a mortality rate of similar proportion due to small arms fire seems very unlikely. Also of questionable value was the studies reported pre-invasion mortality rates. Saddam Hussein was a dictator whose reign was marked by it’s brutality. A 2% mortality rate due to violence is absurd.
While I’ll admit to a fairly large ego, I would disagree with your comment. My ego isn’t something that is inflated or deflated by something like this. I am confident in my abilities and knowledge, and fairly open towards criticism or comment. I’m not above changing my mind if a situation or evidence suggests I may be in err.
You failed to include the URL of the blog you normally post from. I’d be happy to add it to your comment if it was left off by mistake.
Comment by HDW — October 12, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
I agree absolutely with you (and Omar) it’s decidedly disrespectful to those who did lose their lives!
And ignore the flamers… waste of space
Comment by Bre — October 12, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
I remember just enough of statistics (I’m a chemist, what did I need that class for anyway?) to know baloney when I see it. But really, in this case it isn’t very difficult, all you need is a little common sense and some grasp of reality. Although that does seem to be difficult for some…
Comment by jan — October 12, 2006 @ 9:47 pm