Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactitus
It wasn't just the right who criticized this study. Iraq Body Count had some serious questions about it as well (I think IBCs numbers are a bit suspect as well, but their methodology is much sounder and reasonably transparent). I won't bother repeating the criticisms they and others have made of the Lancet studies (read the full IBC report for starters; the above link starts with the summary). |
I did. Firstly they state that their own figure is highly likely to be significantly lower than the real number of deaths over this time period. Secondly lancet's 95% confidence figure is given at 426,000 violent deaths. Thirdly IBC's methodology is based on media sources, not statistical analysis. Perhaps another survey questioning people as regards the issues which IBC raised would be in order but random assertions of "it must be false, thinking otherwise is just outrageous!" aren't really helping anyone.
Quote:
|
I will also add that this is the second time the Lancet has released a study just prior to a US election which purports to show a much higher number of Iraqi casualties than anyone previously thought. Once might be a coincidence, but twice? Unfortunately, this creates an appearance (at the very least) of a political agenda and I think scientists with political agendas invite and deserve additional skepticism on that basis alone.
|
This is an utterly bizzare point. Additional skepticism as regards what? Do you think they falsified the data? Stick to actual criticisms.