About those Lancet numbers

Posted by: ST on October 16, 2006 at 4:40 pm

The much-disputed recent study by Lancet that claims over 650,000 Iraqi’s have died since the start of Iraq war is being disputed today but the anti-war Iraq Body Count website. Their claim? Lancet’s numbers are way too high. Via the IBC website:

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

  • incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
  • bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
  • the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
  • an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

So even in light of the fact that they don’t support the Iraq war, IBC also doesn’t support the over-inflated numbers from the recent Lancet October surprise. A rare tip of the hat goes to IBC.

Via: McQ at QandO

Oh, speaking of Lancet, Jim Hoft points to the political leanings of Lancet’s editor. You won’t be surprised.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

13 Responses to “About those Lancet numbers”

Comments

  1. Stoo says:

    The Lancet study never passed even the most cursory inspection. If their numbers were to be believed, it worked out to about 448 civilian casualties per day.

    Somehow, I think Katy, Matt, Keith O., etc. would have been screeching that at the top of their lungs.

  2. Lorica says:

    Nooo way Stoo. We had many many folk right here tell us, this was a peer reviewed, acceptable method of true research. We have been told many times there is no conspiracies in the scientific community. We have been been ridiculed and made to look like fools cause we don’t believe that “science”. Now we find out that there is a question about all of this “research”. Really??? You mean it is like the olden days when doctors used leeches to drain tired blood of of people. WOW, who would a thunk it!!!

    I go right back to what I said originally when this first came out. There is NOTHING inside of me that believes this is truth.

    Just another attempt by people who have run out of ideas, and refuse to come to the table. Another gimick to make their opposition look bad. Or shall I say their willing allies, this time in another country. – Lorica

  3. lawhawk says:

    And there’s a bit in the IBC statement that suggests that the current bodycount for the first half of 2006 undercounts by a significant margin. They’re saying that the violent death toll on a daily basis is 1,000, of which only a fraction is picked up by any of the media outlets/government sources.

    Who’s to blame? I put the blame squarely on the jihadis whose bloodlust will not be quenched until all are brought low by them.

  4. Stoo says:

    We had many many folk right here tell us, this was a peer reviewed, acceptable method of true research.

    Do I detect a hint of sarcasm, Lorica? ;)

  5. John says:

    soooo.. i guess 40,000 or whatever is an acceptable death count of iraqis. christianity redefined… jesus christ.

  6. PCD says:

    John,

    would you feel better if Saddam put another few hundred thousand into mass graves?

    Sometimes you liberals in demanding perfection of others ignore reality and the stupidity of your positions and assumptions.

  7. Lorica says:

    John quit being a moron. Jesus would have no deaths if it were left to him, and most Christians understand that. Also if it were left to Jesus, Everyone in the world would be a Christian. Which according to Christians, is going to come soon enough. The reality of the situation is, it is no longer in Jesus’ hands, He has left that to us, and that includes Sadamn Hussein. I have said this before and I will say this again. It is tragic what is going on with the Iraqi people, no ifs, ans or buts. We didn’t ask for this war, and if Bill Clinton would of gotten into it when he should of, we wouldn’t be in the state we are presently in, or would we?? After 14 UN resolutions, which all reprimanded Iraq concerning breaking the surrender agreement from 1991. After 500,000 deaths due to genocide ordered by Sadamn. After the constant encouragement by Sadamn to attack our allies by terrorists. What exactly were we suppose to do John??? Maybe sit back and let Sadamn kill another half million people?? Perhaps attack one of our other allies?? Well we didn’t, we went to war, and the Iraqi people, if I remember correctly celebrated the liberation of Baghdad, or at least they seemed pretty happy to me when they were pulling Sadamn’s statue down.

    It is nice for you all to have your little 1 liners telling people what Jesus thinks, attempting to remind us that we are wrong. The problem is, much like a cancer do you cut it out or leave it to infect other tissue?? Well Sadamn was a cancer, and needed to be removed. Please don’t give me any of this garbage that Sadamn was contained either. Isn’t it amazing that when Sadamn’s money dried up so do the suicide bombers in Israel??? Come back to reality man. We are in a war, with foreign fighters in Iraq, many of them poured over the borders to kill Americans. What we really need is for the left to stop the BS, and stop aiding and abetting our enemies. Yes there are legitimate complaints with the war, yes it seems we are funneling billions upon billions of dollars into a rat hole, but there is a hope for the future. If Japan and Germany are our examples of Iraq 50 years later, I think we will be doing alright. – Lorica

  8. Baklava says:

    John asked, “soooo.. i guess 40,000 or whatever is an acceptable death count of iraqis. christianity redefined… jesus christ.

    1 is not acceptable. 1 Japanese person is not acceptable. 1 German is not acceptable.

    Utopia is not possible John. Sure we could’ve just submitted in WW1, Civil War, WW2 and after 9/11 but we chose not to. The Global War on Terror has been said by Bush (I agree – liberals don’t – we get that) to be waged on many fronts and not just by use of the military. Unfortunately, it seems that liberals oppose every one of those fronts (except Afghanistan – but some liberals even opposed that). We GET that you are opposed to all these fronts and keep saying that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It DOESN’T matter to us. 9/11 changed the way of thinking. We can’t let terrorists plot and scheme and kill thousands or millions in one fell swoop anymore. It is not acceptable. The liberal way to us is not acceptable. To liberals our way is not acceptable. But to ask questions like you asked is great for our side because political newbies can come here and see what they are facing. It helps convince newfangled voters who they want to vote for.

    But maybe not. 1/3 of Americans don’t even know what year 9/11 happened on. But most of them probably don’t vote….

    Good luck with your line of reasoning in convincing Americans to vote the way you think. I hope Americans aren’t duped by it. Because in your way of thinking is an implication that conservatives are evil because we are for deaths or do not care about deaths. It’s those kind of implications that contain FALSE accusations and aren’t really useful in debate. It isn’t a discussion. It’s an accusation. What kind of response were you looking for?

  9. Baklava says:

    No need for us to have to defend ourselves from the likes of John Lorica. The liberal pattern is to attack and accuse and not have meaninful discussions. It’s always addressing us with condescencion.

    No matter how we’d like to address this Global War on Terror it has been a) unconstitutional b) hypocritical of the U.S c) with bad motives (for example for oil) d) too heavy handed …. etc. etc.

    As far ask I can tell they are all over the place on how they would handle the war on terror. It’s great to have critics but it seems to many people these days are too negative and judgmental. Instead of being able to move forward positively we are swimming in a sea of mud and non-clarity trying to defend and point out how false their accusations are.

    My personal belief is it stems from being a well off nation with lazy people that do not do their due diligence and say things negligently (without working to find out if what they are saying is true). Negativity without perspective. But then again it happens in societies where they don’t have too much time on their hands I’ve read lately. So I’m reminded of a great philosopher’s phrase, “Humanity’s struggle is against confusion”.

    I guess it’d be nicer if in trying to work through that confusion we weren’t attacked so much and we could be HEARD when we refute claims or accustations. Frustration is born of not being heard. I’m positive based on past precedence that John will come back without hearing us and make more attacks.

    Want to make a wager?

  10. NC Cop says:

    Another hit and run poster…….

    He’s so very concerned about the poor Iraqi citizens dying NOW. Yet he couldn’t care less about the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children that were tortured, raped, and murdered by Saddam.

    You’re quite the humanitarian, John.

  11. Lorica says:

    You could give me 100 to 1 odds Bak and I wouldn’t bet against ya. I might as well just send you the money even before John posts his “reply”. =)) – Lorica

  12. Lorica says:

    Ohhh Sorry Stoo, but Hell YES!!! – Lorica