<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Annals of deja vu: The Lancet does it again 


Once again, The Lancet publishes a study about deaths in Iraq based on interviews just before an American election. This time the headline number of "but for" deaths is 600,000, rather than 100,000.

Whatever the base credibility of The Lancet's editors, their propensity to publish these things in October of even-numbered years makes them look like partisan hacks.


10 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 11, 10:17:00 AM:

I'm sure they were not trying to hurt the republicans chances .We all know there doing a great jod of that without any help.  

By Anonymous IndispensableDestiny, at Wed Oct 11, 10:48:00 AM:

This is no different than the Centers for Disease Control reporting on gun crime in Morbity and Mortality Monthly Report. They act as if the gang bangers have some disease that can be identified and treated. The disease they've identified is manufactured by Smith and Wesson, Baretta, Glock, and others.  

By Blogger Tom Paine, at Wed Oct 11, 11:33:00 AM:

It's deliberately dishonest political partisanship posing as science.

Lancet's authors and editors are best described by the old saying: "An ass bearing a load of books remains an ass".  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 11, 11:55:00 AM:

I'm wondering how many deaths would occur in a population of 20 million or so over that period of time without a war? Wonder how many occurred in the "peacetime" of Hussein?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 11, 12:46:00 PM:

So releasing this study is political interference? I guess it would be better if they published this data and analysis in say April of next year.  

By Blogger Dan Trabue, at Wed Oct 11, 02:35:00 PM:

I don't know anything about Lancet, but if they have researched and believed that evidence shows US policy is causing greater deaths and part of their mission is to protect life, then it makes a great deal of sense to me to politicize it - they probably wish to influence policy. More power to them, as long as their research is not made up - and I have heard no one ever suggest that it is.  

By Blogger Tongueboy, at Wed Oct 11, 04:54:00 PM:

More power to them, as long as their research is not made up - and I have heard no one ever suggest that it is.

At the risk of sounding sarcastic -- a risk I'm more than happy to take -- let me just say: "Their research is made up."

Notice also that the study identifies excess deaths -- those above and beyond the norm under the beneficent regime of Saddam Hussein -- so the raw total would actually be much higher. And these victims aren't being bulldozed into the ground either. So where are all the excess funerals? The fat cat funeral home directors? Ginormous Hillenbrand profits?  

By Blogger Dan Trabue, at Wed Oct 11, 05:04:00 PM:

Tongueboy, by all means, conduct your own research and report your results. Making stuff up out of your hat doesn't particularly impress me.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Oct 11, 07:07:00 PM:

OK, part of that article says the highest monthly death toll in Iraq was 3590 in July 2006. The war has been going on 3 years. Even if the highest number died every month of that time period,which didn't happen, the number of deaths would be 3590X36, or 129,240. So what are they talking about? It's made up.  

By Blogger kcom, at Wed Oct 11, 10:59:00 PM:

"Whatever the base credibility of The Lancet's editors, their propensity to publish these things in October of even-numbered years makes them look like partisan hacks."

It doesn't make them look like partisan hacks - it reveals them to be partisan hacks.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?