See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 31523
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-311) not displayed.
.
.
.
#312. To: bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, scrapper2, ALL (#273)
********* Iraqi Death Survey Part II In my first post, I simply mentioned 3 items that, from my own experience conducting surveys, seemed surprising, at best, or downright unbelievable, at worst, regarding the apparent success and efficiency of the survey teams. These questions did not address the methodology of the survey, they simply cast aspersions on the integrity of the survey teams. Quite simply, I find it particularily hard to believe that you can achieve a 98%+ response rate under conditions as difficult as those in Iraq (I've never gotten that kind of result in Minnesota), and that you can conduct the careful, thorough, sensitive surveys that the article implies it conducted, in what must average well under 1/2 hour per survey (at 40 per day, it would probably actually add up to less than 15 minutes per household of actual survey time.) But those are just skepticisms. In this post, I will bring up three problems that I find with the sampling methodology. In future posts I will look at some difficulties I find in the methods of extrapolation in the conclusions. 1. The second stage of the sampling is troubling: "At the second stage of sampling, the Governorate's constituent administrative units were listed by population or estimated population, and location(s) were selected randomly proportionate to population size." Why should this be troubling? Well, if a few hundred selections were made per Governorate it wouldn't be, but given the fact that in all but two governorates, 3 or fewer clusters were selected -in many cases only 1, the chances that any smaller towns (or administrative units) anywhere in Iraq might be selected are diminishingly small. It would be interesting to compare the number of small town or rural household clusters selected with the overall population of rural Iraqis to find out whether this underrepresentation were substantial, as I guess that it is. I don't have access to the raw data, so I can' t tell. 2. The sampling method used carries incredible inherent bias: "The third stage consisted of random selection of a main street within the administrative unit from a list of all main streets. A residential street was then randomly selected from a list of residential streets crossing the main street. On the residential street, houses were numbered and a start household was randomly selected. From this start household, the team proceeded to the adjacent residence until 40 households were surveyed." This may seem fine, and it would be, in suburban U.S. However, in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, and the chaos of many others living in temporary housing and the squalor of newly-constructed unofficial slums, none of these persons had any possibility of being surveyed. Neither did any who live on any unnamed or unrecognized streets. And again, it is quite possible that many smaller towns don't even have any officially named main street, so wouldn't show up on the list at all. What effect would this bias have? There's no way to know, but it is clearly a built-in bias, systematically selecting against some rather large demographic groups. 3. In addition, it is clear that at the whim of the interview team, these pre-selected sites could be changed: "Decisions on sampling sites were made by the field manager. The interview team were given the responsibility and authority to change to an alternate location if they perceived the level of insecurity or risk to be unacceptable." This is a clear admission of selection bias in the sampling. Given the sectarian tensions in Iraq, even granting the alleged professionalism of the canvassing teams, it is impossible to tell the impact of these biases, but their existence is unquestionable. The implication in the report is clearly that more deadly areas were underrepresented, but were more distant (possibly safe) areas also selected against because of the level of risk required to reach them? To summarize, then, the sampling methods reported systematically select against three groups (that I can think of): A) rural Iraqis (both in the method of selecting administrative units, and in the method of selecting particular streets) B) internally displaced refugees (since many live in camps, and not on named streets) and C) urban slum dwellers, who may often also not live in organized households on named streets. The fact that the previous survey, done via GPS location, mirrors the present one in the 2003-04 results merely indicates that, to the extent that the present method may be less representative than the previous one, the biases did not effect the death toll results from 2004; it says nothing about whether these biases are still unimportant. After all, the nature of the situation has changed significantly in Iraq; that's one of the main conclusions of the report. If the recent upsurge in violence has been predominantly urban rather than rural, these sampling methods might tend to overestimate the results. If it has been predominantly in the urban slums or refugee camps, the methods might underestimate them. There is simply no way to tell beyond educated guesses, which take us completely out of the realm of statistical science. In any event, these obvious biases are, in my view, important enough to raise serious doubts about the validity of the conclusions. More troubling, and carrying us way beyond anything that can be "fixed" by more statistical analysis, is the third point; namely, that in spite of the authors' best intentions to randomize the clusters, what they ended up with was, in point of fact, a sample with a high risk of personal selection bias. As understandable as concerns for safety are, statistics has no compassion. If you modify your selection based on personal considerations, you lose your claim to statistical validity. *************
You are right. Take note Diana. No he didn't. But not drones launched from Iraq. Perhaps from across the border or a ship at sea. And the fact is that Saddam's regime was still working on long range UAVs in violation of their agreement not to do so. And one of Iraq's top scientists said the only reason he could see for the modifications being made was to use it to deliver WMD. Something you folks claim Saddam didn't have. Go figure...
BAC, let me ask you again: Do you really think quoting these silly little bullshit blogs will make people believe the shit you spew? I can find one man blogs that assert that alien spaceships are hiding at the north pole. I'm not kidding. What you are quoting here is getting pretty close to that kind of crap. What the hell is a "notropis" anyway?
.
ou still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort. You still can't tell us why Saddam's regime selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG said were related to WMD. You still can't tell us why Saddam didn't just come clean if he had no WMD or WMD programs The White House is not "telling us" any of your claims - and they are the ones who decided on the war. Why do you expect posters on an Internet site to defend outrageous claims that even the people who started the war, and who are constantly trying to justify it, aren't making?
Sure I can. It's a kook conspircay theory that only exists in your head. And you don't have a shred of credible proof to the contrary. Just partisan hacks in the kook fodder press.
.
************ Iraqi Death Survey, Part III Summary of the first two posts: I find some major reasons to be skeptical of the data collected, and the method of collection. The first three are questions that lead me to doubt the credibility of the survey teams, in spite of the authors' assurances: 1) 99% of residences had people at home? The next three lead me to question the inherent bias allowed in the data collection: 4) Samples of size 1 - 3 (the number of clusters chosen from all but two of the governorates) chosen "proportionally to population size" can't possibly reflect the actual urban-rural makeup of an individual governorate, and given the small number of governorates, won't reflect the makeup, even taken in aggregate. You can "bootstrap" all you want, but you can't bootstrap with a sample size of 1 (and yes, one cluster is, in many respects just "1.") Moreover, no amount of bootstraping will make a demographic that's completely absent (like "rural Iraqis in X province") suddenly appear. 5) Persons living on non-officially-recognized and named streets were systematically ignored, biasing considerably against those living in urban slums, internally-displaced refugees, and rural Iraqis, and this influence was completely overlooked. 6) The field manager could select sampling sites at whim, and these could be changed at the "responsibility and authority" of the interview team. I'm sorry, but, even with the amazingly advanced statistical analysis done on the numbers, these fundamental questions about the worth of the data collected undercut any validity of the survey. "Garbage in = garbage out" remains as true as ever, as does "data of questionable validity in = conclusions of questionable validity out" (although that's not nearly so catchy.) ***********
I think the meth has affected your judgment or you wouldn't be buying into this crap.
.
One would think that is clear by now. That the Les Roberts/John Hopkins/Lancet studies were BOGUS. And if we can't agree on that, how can we ever hope to find agreement in any matter. Because this one is plain as day. *********** Iraqi Death Survey Part IV What about the death certificates? According to the article, 80% of the deaths identified in the survey were confirmed by the presence of a death certificate. That's a good thing. That helps A) to make sure that some deaths aren't counted multiple times as being misremembered members of multiple households, B) to establish time of death, and C) to help determine cause of death, among other things. But here's my question: If there's a death certificate, doesn't that make it an officially recorded death? That is (I'm assuming and asking), if the head of household has a copy of the death certificate, wasn't another one filed at the appropriate administrative office, by whoever made out the certificate? If this is the case, why doesn't it end up on the official Iraqi government death toll tally? OK, I can think of several reasons why that might not happen. But the record should still be available locally. So wouldn't it have been/be a good check on the survey to contact the local administrative office, look at the death certificates there, and see whether the actual numbers at the administrative office come within the expected 20% of the projected numbers from the survey of 40 households? I'll grant that that might not be possible on a larger scale, or in every situation, but there's something troubling about a survey that claims to have discovered hundreds of thousands of unreported deaths, by looking past official channels, yet that also claims that 80% of those deaths that it discovered have official death certificates (so clearly were not unreported.) Again, I understand that in some individual circumstances, administrative corruption or confusion might not make this possible, but you'd think it would make sense to double-check this where possible. A positive confirmation would go miles to validate the methodology of this survey. *************
BAC, I can judge you sanity here with a single question: Do you really think anyone is going to read all that silly spam you just blackend the board with? Yes or no. And I will be able to tell you if you are in reality or not.
.
Actually, it just shows I understand statistics and you apparently don't. Let me repeat this post just for you ... ************* Here's a good observation (just what I've been saying). According to the phony survey, they recorded 629 deaths since the start of the war (p4 of the PDF). In 545 cases, they bothered to ask for death certificates, and for those 545 requests, 501 times they were shown the death certificates. So Mr. Pittelli notes, at least 80% of all the deaths in the sample (501/629), and possibly as many as 92% (501/545) were recorded by the government. Let's repeat that: According to the anti-war propagandists who are responsible for this blatant dishonesty, 80 to 92% of all deaths in their sample were recorded in the Iraqi government's own official figures. What this means, as Pittelli points out, is that the official death figures should record at least 80% of the deaths since the Iraq war. Taking the bogus figures at face value, simply for the sake of To take the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figures seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of at least 80%, but then suppressed 85-94% of those recorded deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle on them. You also have to believe that 85-94% of the dead bodies were unnoticed by the MSM, the funeral homes, and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi govt. only issues death certificates for 6-15% of all deaths, but this random sample got 80% certificate hits by pure chance. Can you say bogus? **************
So is this the sort of idiotic kookery that Goldi canned your ass for?
.
************* Iraqi Death Survey Part V An opinion from an actual expert confirms my problems with this survey. The Chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Donald Berry, has this to say: "Selecting clusters and households that are representative and random is enormously difficult. Moreover, any bias on the part of the interviewers in the selection process would occur in every cluster and would therefore be magnified. The authors point out the possibility of bias, but they do not account for it in their report." and "Incorporating the possibility of such biases would lead to a substantially wider range, the potential for bias being huge. Although there is no formal way to address bias short of having an ‘independent body assess the excess mortality,' which the authors recommend, the lower end of this range could easily drop to the 100,000 level." Sort of what I mentioned in my second post, items 4 - 6. But Dr. Berry notices a further problem with the teams' selection bias, and that is that, given that there were only two teams of surveyors, any selection bias will be consistent throughout the survey, skewing all results in the same direction and further widening the true confidence interval. Also, I don't know if he's an expert or not (I know nothing about him), but Tim Blair had the same thought about the death certificates. ************
Do you realize you just posted link to another meaningless kook blog as support for your "argument"? Why should anyone care what "Rants and Rayguns" thinks about anything?
.
Whoops, you got "notropis - fodder for kooks" up there again while I was posting about "Rants and Rayguns". Your other impressive source. Do you think that making the same mistake over and eventually cures the error? Just curious.
.
BAC, if you are going to quote obscure, meaningless blogs in support of your argumets, why don't you just write the things yourself? Pay $14.99 per month, get a blog and tailor it to exactly what you need. No one will buy the shit you quote from it, but no one buys the shit you quote from these pathetic sources either. But what you do quote will be more on point.
.
Maybe you could delete some of Chooser's spam above. Nobody is going to read it and it makes the thread hard to follow.
.
"This war has been privatized, to a great extent, more than any other war in history." This isn't about WMDs in Iraq or any real threat by that country, as all wars have been (WAR IS A RACKET). It's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Watch this---> IRAQ FOR SALE
Hey Beachy, if all you have to do is post a link from a kook one man blog to make something a reality, how about if I wrote a blog saying I had a million bucks in my checking account and then posted it here? Would that work?
.
I've pondered this before, are the paid shills paid by the post or by the hour?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush BAC posts by the "opportunity." If he thinks he can get a response - he calls in his team of superiors.
The entire Bush Cabal, including Rove's minions, are all opportunists. Just like Hitler, and every other tyrant in history.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush So BAC, is there a 12 Step Program or something like that where OC Sociopaths such as yourself can hang out and get feedback? If so, you should bring this thread up in a meeting and let them tell you how you blew it. You won't see it yourself as your very obvious mental defect prevents this. That, by the way, is the crux of the problem you face.
.
Unfortunately, the elements behind the Bush Cabal learned their lessons from Hitler. BUT - as with Hitler, no one is listening to the generals. The "generals" may be take a few notes on Hitler's failures, also. We'll see.
that's true
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL! You really do see all the posters on this forum as so beneath you, don't you. You see all of us as cookie-cutters of one another, all being exceptionally stupid and dull, objectifying all of us. That attitude and the shallow thinking that goes along with it is what's going to bring down the neocons in the end (and probably the rest of us because of them, gee thanks), they tend to underestimate the abilities of those they decide to make their enemies. It's like a blind spot they have, one which for instance does not keep them from repeating mistakes they should have learned from history, like invading Afganistan, as no one will be able to take down those people. But to people like you, all Others are stupid and insignificant so in your minds' they should be easy to conquer, and as usual it just doesn't turn out that way. I won't knit pick with you, it's impossible because my nature is not dishonest enough for me to be able to stoop to your level playing word games. You know something was said to the American people to scare them into thinking that Saddam had the capability to attack within 45 minutes and cause great calamity to our country. That message was loud and clear and indeed has been proven by those posters "helping" me.
You've posted links to blogs. Why is it that you have no links to professional, peer reviewed research? Because it's not out there. Man this left wing conspriracy is vast! It emcompasses academia throughout the whole world! I would no more accept blog information as a "source" than you would accept it as a source in the WTC debate. You can post as many links critical of the Lancet study as you like. If I cared to take the time, I'm sure I could find just as many blogs that supported the study. However, Blogs are not credible sources, period, so it doesn't matter. They are the opinions of people who may or may not know what they are speaking of. However, if they did know what they were talking about, then why haven't they presented their information for peer review? The Bush administration would jump all over it in order to prove the inaccuracy of the Lancet study. The questions asked and information presented in your blogs may be legitimate. However, they may also be based on flawed premises, logic, or information. Then again, they could just be strawman arguments made to confuse and muddy the waters by the Bush admin internet propaganda team. There may be legitimate and perfectly rational reasons for the methodology the researchers used in their study.I am not an epidemiologist and to my knowldege, neither are you. IMO it is unreasonable to believe that a study so flawed (as you contend) would be allowed to stand on such an important topic by those within that particular field. Yet it has been allowed to stand. There is a reason for this, and while you may believe that reason is due to liberalism and/or anti-war sentiment, I do not. You're not proving anything to anyone because you are not posting anything serious. You are posting opinion pieces that prove nothing. However, you misunderstand me and my attitude on the study. I do not take it as gospel. As the saying goes, statistics lie and liars use statistics. I'm only pointing out that there are not any reputable studies backing up your assertions that the study was inaccurate and/or politically driven. Also, for those interested, in October 2006, Johns Hopkins reaffirmed the original study: "Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates. Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html I've gotta run. It's Saturday and I have family stuff to do.
FOX news is not the left. And you know that Bush did indeed make Iraq out to be a threat therefore needed to be invaded. You are really stretching it now.
Oh yeah, before I go. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world. I find it hard to believe that they would risk this reputation in order to score political points and/or press an anti-war agenda.
It's a disinformation tactic to phase-shift issues by saturating the environment with details. The number was horrible - and an American War Crime - there's the boottom line. BAC tries to spam-slam the issue. With rare exception, debating him is the epitome of wasted time. Go to the 'benchmark' and leave it there. "The lowest number is deplorable; and a War Crime."
More projection, the NeoCommie/ZioNazis are very good at projection. They don't know what to do with people who have not been bought/tortured/bribed/threatened/blackmailed. Real Patriots scare them.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Strange. That doesn't mention missiles or using them to hit the US from Iraq. How foolish of me to assume that Bush meant a missile attack. Once again, BAC, your perspicacity has unearthed a subtlety that had heretofore escaped me. You and George W Bush really are masters of nuance. Here are some of the possible alternatives to missile attack that he could have intended to imply: "And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack [by canoe][by FedEx][by hot air balloon] [by carrier pigeon] in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
BAC is quite expert at splitting the hairs of language. If he has his way, there's no reading between the proverbial lines. On ElPee, that was normally accompanied with a "liar" label.
************ Iraqi Death Survey Part VI The effects of migration on the extrapolated numbers The data used to determine the number of clusters per Governorate, as well as the probability of a particular Administrative Region's selection within the Governorate, and to extrapolate to the final 600,000+ figure come from 2004 estimates of Iraqi population. There are several things to think about here. First of all, how accurate are 2004 population estimates likely to be, to begin with? Census data from the Saddam era has every reason to be suspect, and in so far as the 2004 estimates base calculations on pre-2003 census data, they are likely to be flawed. Moreover, independent estimates made in 2004 are likely to suffer from many of the same uncertainties present in this study, namely logistical difficulties in conducting surveys, imprecise administrative records and the like. There's simply no way to know how good these 2004 estimates are, and every reason to believe that they are rough estimates, at best. Be that as it may, and assuming for the moment that they are accurate, what effects do massive displacement since that time have on the extrapolated numbers? According to official reports , over 180,000 internally displaced refugees were reported just between the months of February and June of 2006. Undoubtedly those not registering pushes the number much higher. As I pointed out below, the survey methodology means that these displaced refugees had very little chance of being surveyed. But in addition to that, their migration is sure to skew the analysis of the data. The authors acknowledge as much in their paper: "The population data used for cluster selection were at least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality, the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality areas." Well, not just over-represented in sampling, but also over-estimated in projections. In addition, of course, emigration from Iraq entirely would cause the estimates to be overstated by a corresponding amount (if the population were only 22.5 million, rather than 25 million, for example, then the true extrapolated estimate would have to be revised downward by 10%) The authors, however, also make this very misleading statement about internal migration: "internal population movement would be less likely to affect results appreciably [than emigration from Iraq.]" Perhaps less likely, but the effect could be considerable: Consider the following simplified (and exaggerated) example: Suppose there are 2 regions, each with population = 1 million in 2004, and suppose that, from 2004 to 2006 one of the regions is subjected to extreme violence, while the other is not. Suppose that this causes 50% of the population (500,000) to move from the region of extreme violence to the region without. Now, suppose a survey is done in the two regions, where we find that the violent death toll in the war-torn region is 10 per 1000, while in the more peaceful region it is 2 per 1000 (in the latest 1 year period.) Assuming that the surveys are accurate, we would see that: Actual deaths in war-torn region: 10 per 1000 x 500,000 = 5,000 Extrapolated deaths in war-torn region: 10 per 1000 x 1,000,000 = 10,000 Actual deaths in more peaceful region: 2 per 1000 x 1,500,000 = 3,000 Extrapolated deaths in more peaceful region: 2 per 1000 x 1,000,000 = 2,000 Total actual deaths: 8,000 Total extrapolated deaths: 12,000 Difference: 4000 deaths or an over-estimate of 50%. Now, the true changes from 2004 to 2006 are liable to be far less than the 50% in the example. However, there is also the multiplier effect of overestimation in sampling combined with overestimation in extrapolation: Suppose that a city had a population of 50,000 in 2004, but due to a flare-up of violence, half the people left the city by 2006 (this is NOT at all unlikely, there are reports of entire cities becoming ghost towns overnight, due to the actions of the various militias and insurgent groups, see, for example, Fallujah.) Even though its actual 2006 population was 25,000, it would have twice the likelihood that it should have of being selected, based on its current population. And, given that it had suffered this tremendous out-migration, it would be far likelier to be in a very violent area, contributing higher than representative numbers, which in turn get multiplied by a higher than correct factor. On the other hand, if it were in a very violent area, it's quite possible that the survey teams would simply have decided that it was too risky to get there, and selected, at their whim, another, safer place (which, again, takes this survey completely out of the realm of statistical analysis, without doing a psychoanalysis of the survey teams, and attempting to massage the data in some way to compensate for their selection biases.) Again, the purpose of these analyses is not to show that the actual numbers are higher or lower than the survey's estimates, but rather to analyze the many flaws in both the methodology and interpretation of the survey which may lead it to be not especially meaningful. Update: BBC has more on Iraqi displacement estimates here. ************
********** Iraqi Death Survey, Final I had several more posts prepared, but why bother, when the Iraq Body Count website has done a much better, more thorough job than I could: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php Thanks to all who looked over my material. Notropis ************************
So lemme see.. it's your contention that the number of civilian deaths are being inflated ? What is your position regarding the deaths of soldiers and mercenaries..why are the casuality numbers for them not being reported?
Yawn. BAC, you ridiculous, dishonest, sociopathic moron, call me when you have a legitimate source for the pile of -- UTTERLY UNSUPPORTED SHIT -- you have been spewing for the past two days. Your unsupported word on the subject is nullity. If fact it's worse than nullity because you got busted for posting fake links last night - look on the thread above. Given that, it's probably more correct to say that your unsupported word is the word of a failed and transparent would be bullshit artist. Don't waste my time with your kook blogs and five year old NewsMax articles. And don't waste my time if your mental defect prevents you from being honest - which I truely suspect is the case. Take me off your ping list. I haven't got time for the mentally ill who can't even see the objection to their silly shit, much less respond to it. In closing, the lone kook blog you cite in support in your nutty spew above isn't a source. It's either a joke or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
.
"John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world" - excellent point that bears being repeated - and its methodology for ascertaining mortality and disease figures in populations has been used in previous wars. From the updated John Hopkins report: "The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions." For some people, the John Hopkins methodology is acceptable most of the time except when the aggressor in the war, in which mortality figures are being calculated, is our government.
Excuse me, it wasn't a single ridiculous and partisan kook blog you were relying upon to support your bullshit, it was two ridiculous and partisan kook blogs. Sorry. My mistake. But you everything I said above still holds. Don't bother me with your silly unsupported crap.
.
just wanted you guys to see the photo of BAC that has now surfaced on the internet and is being circulated. BAC is on the left. thanks BAC for making it available.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Only if by "expert" you mean "clumsy."
BAC, maybe I wasn't clear in my posts above. The technical term for what you have been doing for the past three days is called "pulling facts and figures out of your ass". What you want to do is start a contest to see who can pull the most facts and figures out of their ass the fastest. This allows you to obfuscate important issues and advance your agenda in a dishonest manner - but you know this. Were I to pull enough facts and figures out of my ass, I could prove that I was Ron Brown and that I was still dead. And everyone knows this. Hence, nobody here is impressed with your tactic. Is that more clear?
.
Comments (353 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic.
#313. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#278)
Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
He didn't actually say it,
he implied it.
He did say however that they could launch drone remote controlled planes over here to deliver a chemical/biological attack though.
#314. To: BeAChooser (#312)
(Edited)
#315. To: BeAChooser (#306)
Still can't explain that binary sarin warhead, can you. Y
#316. To: BeAChooser (#306)
You still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort.
#317. To: Dakmar, bluedogtxn, scrapper, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, ALL (#279)
well aren't you the clever little slickyboy, knowing all these links by heart...
2) 98% of residences had heads of household (or spouses) at home and willing and able to provide the requested information?
3) Thorough explanations and double-checking and proofs of information were possible in well under half hour per interview?
#318. To: BeAChooser (#317)
#319. To: kiki, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, scrapper2, Burkeman1, ALL (#282)
what in the world is your point?
#320. To: BeAChooser (#317)
#321. To: tom007, ALL (#283)
The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths.
You could be insane, just based on the above statement alone.
argument entertainment, I calculate the estimates based on official figures should be between 314,000 and 867,000. They aren't. The "official figures estimate" is about 49,000.
#322. To: BeAChooser (#321)
(Edited)
#323. To: Dakmar, bluedogtxn, scrapper, kiki, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, ALL (#287)
So who pays you to post here?
#324. To: BeAChooser (#321)
#325. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#326. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#327. To: Christine (#323)
#328. To: BeAChooser (#321)
#329. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#330. To: SKYDRIFTER (#305)
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#331. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#330)
#332. To: SKYDRIFTER (#331)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#333. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#334. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#332)
The entire Bush Cabal, including Rove's minions, are all opportunists. Just like Hitler, and every other tyrant in history.
#335. To: SKYDRIFTER (#334)
BUT - as with Hitler, no one is listening to the generals.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#336. To: BeAChooser, All (#289)
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#337. To: BeAChooser (#280)
And by the way, I'm going to post even more URLS to sources that are critical of the John Hopkins/Lancet study.
#338. To: BeAChooser (#289)
More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat.
#339. To: BeAChooser (#280)
#340. To: Hayek Fan, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#339)
#341. To: Diana (#336)
You see all of us as cookie-cutters of one another, all being exceptionally stupid and dull, objectifying all of us.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#342. To: BeAChooser (#277)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." George W. Bush
#343. To: leveller, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#342)
#344. To: ..., bluedogtnx, scrapper2, Burkeman1, Halek Fan, ALL (#297)
If the articles really suupported your argument, you would be waving the text in our faces and screaming for us to read them.
#345. To: ..., bluedogtxn, scrapper2, kiki, Halek Fan, Burkeman1, ALL (#299)
I think I will go with Johns Hopkins University
#346. To: BeAChooser (#344)
#347. To: BeAChooser (#345)
(Edited)
#348. To: Hayek Fan (#339)
(Edited)
Oh yeah, before I go. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world. I find it hard to believe that they would risk this reputation in order to score political points and/or press an anti-war agenda.
#349. To: BeAChooser (#345)
#350. To: ..., Scrapper2, Diana (#349)
#351. To: SKYDRIFTER (#343)
BAC is quite expert
#352. To: BeAChooser (#345)
.
.
.