From today's Wall Street Journal:
Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident. You can find the fascinating details in the current issue of National Journal magazine, thanks to reporters Neil Munro and Carl Cannon...
Editorial, "The Lancet's Political Hit," Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984087808076475.html
"Data Bomb," National Journal, January 9, 2008: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm
Lancet study: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterso 47.700 people is an acceptable number of deaths?
From today's Wall Street Journal:
Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
It turns out the Lancet stu ...[text shortened]... ncet study: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAnd you criticise the AGW crowd for saying the source of funding has a negative effect on global warming research?!
From today's Wall Street Journal:
Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
It turns out the Lancet stu ...[text shortened]... ncet study: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Wherever the money came from, the research (which was peer reviewed by anonymous experts in the same field) had its statements, methods and error bars held up by statistical practice.
http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm
"Within a few weeks a backlash rose, although the contrarian view of the study generated far less press attention than the Lancet article. In the ensuing year, numerous skeptics have identified various weaknesses with the study's methodology and conclusions. "
"Some critics go so far as to suggest that the field research on which the study is based may have been performed improperly -- or not at all. The key person involved in collecting the data -- Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results -- has refused to answer questions about his methods. "
Originally posted by zeeblebotAre you talking about the body count or the reasons given for attacking Iraq?
http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm
"Within a few weeks a backlash rose, although the contrarian view of the study generated far less press attention than the Lancet article. In the ensuing year, numerous skeptics have identified various weaknesses with the study's methodology and conclusions. "
Originally posted by uzlessthe backlash was against the lancet study.
Are you talking about the body count or the reasons given for attacking Iraq?
les roberts mentioned in an interview that the timing of the study's release before the US elections was intentional ...
i see some folks still have his hook firmly embedded in their lips ... i guess they haven't read the article ...
"Partisan considerations. Soros is not the only person associated with the Lancet studies who had one eye on the data and the other on the U.S. political calendar. In 2004, Roberts conceded that he opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset, and -- in a much more troubling admission -- said that he had e-mailed the first study to The Lancet on September 30, 2004, "under the condition that it come out before the election." Burnham admitted that he set the same condition for Lancet II. "We wanted to get the survey out before the election, if at all possible," he said. "
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm not sure I understand the point that this thread is making. Is it trying to expose the number of iraq death as being too high....or is it commenting, in a rather clever way, on the way the Dem's and Rep's use data to their own purposes. The Rep's in using the WMD "data" and the Dems in using the death "data"
the backlash was against the lancet study.
les roberts mentioned in an interview that the timing of the study's release before the US elections was intentional ...
i see some folks still have his hook firmly embedded in their lips ... i guess they haven't read the article ...
"Partisan considerations. Soros is not the only person associated with t I. "We wanted to get the survey out before the election, if at all possible," he said. "
In other words, you can't trust any of the politicians when they use "studies" to back up their claims and justifications.
Or am I just taking 2 separate facts and making an astute observation?
Originally posted by uzlessThe point of the thread is that an oft-cited study by one of the most well respected medical journals in the world is terribly flawed because it was performed by partisan stooges who suffer from BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I'm not sure I understand the point that this thread is making. Is it trying to expose the number of iraq death as being too high....or is it commenting, in a rather clever way, on the way the Dem's and Rep's use data to their own purposes. The Rep's in using the WMD "data" and the Dems in using the death "data"
In other words, you can't trust any of th ...[text shortened]... ifications.
Or am I just taking 2 separate facts and making an astute observation?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAstute observation it is then
The point of the thread is that an oft-cited study by one of the most well respected medical journals in the world is terribly flawed because it was performed by partisan stooges who suffer from BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat they destroyed their data should have been a clue. Both the Lancet mortality estimates are crap.
The point of the thread is that an oft-cited study by one of the most well respected medical journals in the world is terribly flawed because it was performed by partisan stooges who suffer from BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Ummmm.... I mentioned this two or three years ago in this very forum. And this is just the tip of the iceburg. The BBC seems to be complicit all the way. But they are no worse than NBC, CBS, ABC. NPR, PBS etc... they all seem to have used that propaganda as fact at multiple times.
Rosy O'Donnel and ABC STILL use their propaganda with impunity!
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI don't subscribe to the WSJ online so your link take me to a very incomplete page. With that in mind, let me ask you a question. Was the article taken from the news section, the editorials, or the opinions?
From today's Wall Street Journal:
Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
It turns out the Lancet stu ...[text shortened]... ncet study: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
From what little you have on this page, I can see that the article will likely use the National Review as a primary source. By using a highly partisan opinion magazine like The National Review in this way, isn't the article succumbing to the very thing for which it chastises the Lancet?
I just like to get a sense of how reliable your link is. It's one thing to come from the news section of the WSJ; it's quite another to come from the opinions.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhether or not its authors are political partisans, does not necessarily affect the quality of the study. It is probably wise to be more suspicious of the study, but you can't dismiss it solely because the researchers' have strong political beliefs.
The point of the thread is that an oft-cited study by one of the most well respected medical journals in the world is terribly flawed because it was performed by partisan stooges who suffer from BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome.
If partisan authors always wrote false pieces, then your OP would be a lie.