And those of us who supported the actions in Iraq aren't surprised by the following story :
A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'm all for having research disclosing where the funding comes from.
And those of us who supported the actions in Iraq aren't surprised by the following story :
A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical ...[text shortened]... he research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
I totally agree with you that even a solid study can look dubious if there's a chance of priorities clashing.
Originally posted by duecerMe? No.
umm yeah, so you're saying that 151,000 deaths is acceptable.
But I thought we were discussing the disclosing of financing of studies...
and ultimately, it would be good to know how many studies are financed by Lockheed/Martin and United Fruits, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by SMSBear716Y'all got a problem when the lefties sponsor a study but have no problems when the righties sponsor a global warming study?
And those of us who supported the actions in Iraq aren't surprised by the following story :
A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical ...[text shortened]... he research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
Me thinks ye can't have it both ways matey.
Pathetically, I bet most conservatives would be absolutely livid about the Iraq War if it had been prosecuted by a Democrat/Liberal administration.
Because they spent years buying into and preaching every rationalization to support President Bush, it is hard for many conservatives to reevaluate Iraq. This despite the fact that many of them have long withdrawn their general support for the President).
Edit: It should go without saying that liberals are often guilty of the same hypocrisy on other issues. Nevertheless, (unfortunately) I still feel the need to post it anyway.
I don't think the term "conservative" should apply to people who blindly support Bush and all he does and says automatically.
it should be kept in mind that the Bush admin and the Pentagon, as a matter of policy, do not count Iraqi deaths... and considering that all who follow Bush are quite comfortable, as Merk says, with 151,000+ zeros (utterly disgusting, BTW), it's unlikely that any wealthy Bush supporters are going to fund a study... so it's a noble undertaking for anyone to try to find the truth when the Bush admin works to keep it hidden.
Originally posted by telerionNot this conservative. I would have thought the same way. I can say that honestly because I supported Clinton when he was dealing with Saddam.
Pathetically, I bet most conservatives would be absolutely livid about the Iraq War if it had been prosecuted by a Democrat/Liberal administration.
Because they spent years buying into and preaching every rationalization to support President Bush, it is hard for many conservatives to reevaluate Iraq. This despite the fact that many of them have long w ...[text shortened]... pocrisy on other issues. Nevertheless, (unfortunately) I still feel the need to post it anyway.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI change my mind. You've convinced me. I would now support adding 3 zeros if the Iraqi population was big enough to do so.
I don't think the term "conservative" should apply to people who blindly support Bush and all he does and says automatically.
it should be kept in mind that the Bush admin and the Pentagon, as a matter of policy, do not count Iraqi deaths... and considering that all who follow Bush are quite comfortable, as Merk says, with 151,000+ zeros (utterly d ...[text shortened]... ndertaking for anyone to try to find the truth when the Bush admin works to keep it hidden.
We don't fight wars on the basis of body count, we fight them on the basis of neccessity. With neccessity established body count is an unfortunate side effect. Nothing more. A war could no more be prosecuted or judged on the basis of body count than it could on the basis of it's carbon footprint.