Lancet Study

[hcap]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/26/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iraq-Death-Toll.php

The government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet medical journal in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticized study had used sound methods.

The Lancet study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.



Takes the FOI act to get at the truth

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths.

The conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the U.S. and British governments."
95% means they claim the REAL # is between 350,000 and 1,000,000, based on knocking on doors and asking if any of their relatives died since the war started, without requiring any proof.
Fine for any who think that is accurate and refuse to believe the Iraqi Govt numbers.
I do not sit at a desk at a liberal University and submit studys to a medical mag based on a few dozen cases and extrapulate for the whole population, or test rats, cats or dogs and figure medicine for humans
But I was an enumerator (census taker) in 1990 for the US Census and I say the method used is not good enough because there was no VALID base or reference numbers to start from, and no way to verify ANY of the anecdotes from the interviews; and there was no way to verify the objectivity of the interviewers, the attitiude of the interwieees toward the interviewers, or truthfulness of the interviewees as to if those decease were REALLY living in that household or some relative who lived eslewhere who the interviewees happended to know.
I actually have my suspisions that those answering may have even included those killed by Hussein while in power, since I do not remeber the survey listing deaths by tribal affiliation.
In the US census, there is enough base information from previous censuses to make projections based on what is found, and then it can be off by 2% depending on who is actually living in as house at the time and the reliability of the person interviewed.
I have studied many census households from various years from all the way back to the first census in 1790 to 1930 and much alternate information when censused were not available; I have to judge the reliability first if I do not find the family I am looking for based on circumstances and known facts of family information; I also have to consider the reliabilty of the enumerator and the geography of the location to figure if the enumerator missed som cabins on the mountaion like my family on Hog Mountain, or spent the day in the town bar asking drunks to guess about neighbors; I also try to figure out if the information was given by a neighbor or a minor child.
In the 1840 census in Westport, Essex County New York where my 4th great grandfather's household was on the census but was left off the index, there is only 4 minor children listed for the household and no adults; This in a family with 3 children 20-28 who were at one time or another sailors and 2 times around that time period where either the 50 year-old SR or the 18 year-old JR was convicted of "stomping, kicking" other people, and an area where relatives and neighbors oftern took in children of other families when circumstances required it. In 1850 there was a woman and child of the same last name who turned out to have the same name but actually were related to a neighbor family who recently moved to Canada.
Since I knew the parents were still alive, I did not know if the old man was in prison being visited by the wife or if they were staying elsewhere tending to the animals, visiting some relatives for the day, or sleeping in the back room while a child answered the door.
After the older couple (my 4ht greats) and one son moved to Iowa, the 1860 census showed them and their son's family in 1860; the 1870 census was missing them and a very young child, so just their son, daughter in law and 2 children were shown. All I could ever do was assume thay my 4ths and the child died of pneumonia during the decade.

[Greyfox]

"
The conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the U.S. and British governments."
95% means they claim the REAL # is between 350,000 and 1,000,000, based on knocking on doors and asking if any of their relatives died since the war started, without requiring any proof.
Fine for any who think that is accurate and refuse to believe the Iraqi Govt numbers.
.

So the numbers aren't accurate. I think it's fair to conclude a lot of people died.

[kenwoodallpromos]

So the numbers aren't accurate. I think it's fair to conclude a lot of people died.
_________-
I was answering HCap's whiole purpose for the thread- that the Lancet article makjes the numbers "the truth" politely. HCap never stated whethter he thought that was a lot or not, so that is not what I responded to.
Good thing I didn't post a long and thoughtful post for nothing!!LOL!!

[PaceAdvantage]

So the numbers aren't accurate. I think it's fair to conclude a lot of people died.

No shit?!? You think?

Though, if the numbers aren't accurate, then certain folks shouldn't be spouting them off as fact (only for shock value of course).

[Ponyplayr]

The Lancet study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence 655,000 fewer Iraqis... Let's see.. the average carbon footprint of Third world Humans is 4 tons per individual.
So 655,000 x 4 = 2,620,000 tons of carbon that is no longer being dumped into the environment. Thus proving that the War on Terror is good for the environment :jump: Now if we can just reduce the Carbon Footprint of Iran and the Blue States :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilzal should be happy about reducing global warming. Now I understand why the the administration and other politicians are so adamant about the debate over global warming is over and now it is time to implement a plan to reduce global greenhouse gases. :D

[Tom]

Let's put a positive spin on this.....don't think in term of dead Iraqis, think of carbon footprint reductions.
Gonna come to that if we listen to the Gore monkeys.

[Greyfox]

No shit?!? You think?

Though, if the numbers aren't accurate, then certain folks shouldn't be spouting them off as fact (only for shock value of course).

The null hypothesis is that the number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 is not significantly greater than normal years.
The null hypothesis has been rejected with a 95 % certainty that the number of deaths associated with the violence is greater than 392,979 and possibly more than 600,000.
It is a fact that the null hypothesis has been rejected. If you think that's for shock value then that's your prerogative. Personally, I don't think that the researchers at John Hopkins reported their findings to Lancet for shock value.

[GameTheory]

No shit?!? You think?

Though, if the numbers aren't accurate, then certain folks shouldn't be spouting them off as fact (only for shock value of course).

The null hypothesis is that the number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 is not significantly greater than normal years.
The null hypothesis has been rejected with a 95 % certainty that the number of deaths associated with the violence is greater than 392,979 and possibly more than 600,000.
It is a fact that the null hypothesis has been rejected. If you think that's for shock value then that's your prerogative. Personally, I don't think that the researchers at John Hopkins reported their findings to Lancet for shock value.Rejecting the null hypothesis used flawed methodology means nothing whatsoever. It means the null hypothesis was rejected within the context of the experiment. But if the assumptions that the experiment is based on -- that the data you are using is valid to begin with -- is not true, then the experiment means nothing in terms of telling us anything about the real world.

Where is the evidence that the data has any validity?

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=Greyfox]
Where is the evidence that the data has any validity?

The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
They have been wrong before. However, articles submitted to them undergo very stiff peer reviews. If you think that the methodology is flawed then I suggest that you contact them. http://www.thelancet.com/

In the meanwhile, I view the majority of Lancet's articles as cutting edge state of the art submissions.

[Greyfox]

In checking out the research article itself, I have not located it.
From what I've read on the net, The Lancet has admitted that the "sample size" using a "cluster technique" was small.
Possibly too small, but nevertheless Lancet accepted the findings.
Probably more information to the study can be obtained at:
John Hopkins School of Public Health.
http://faculty.jhsph.edu/GetExperts.cfm?topic_id=110

Gilbert Burnham and Leslie Roberts are listed on that site as international experts in Iraqi war casualties.

President Bush, upon hearing of the numbers, stated:
"I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me," Mr Bush told reporters at the White House.
"Six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just... it's not credible," Mr Bush said.

So, rather than believe any number, I'll stick with my original belief that is in agreement with GWB that a lot of people died.

[GameTheory]

[QUOTE=GameTheory]

The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
They have been wrong before. However, articles submitted to them undergo very stiff peer reviews. If you think that the methodology is flawed then I suggest that you contact them. http://www.thelancet.com/

In the meanwhile, I view the majority of Lancet's articles as cutting edge state of the art submissions.Credentials of the publisher is not evidence that people answering the door in Iraq are telling the truth, or that extrapolating from a handful (literally) of death certificates to hundreds of thousands of people reflects reality in any way.

The President holds one of the most important and prestigious positions in the world -- do you believe everything he says?

[Secretariat]

Is there an acceptable number of deaths? Couple hundred thousand, one way or the other? As GReyfox and GW said, a lot.

[Greyfox]

Well send us in a more credible direction Game Theory. I'm open minded.
In the meanwhile, I didn't do the study. Take it up at the address sites that I've listed above if you think their numbers are flawed. Let us know what their replies are.

[GameTheory]

You didn't do the study, but you believe the study. Go ahead, what do I care? But since the data it is based on is ridiculous by common sense standards, I don't think it is asking to much to ask why I should give it a second thought if you can't give me any good reason to believe what would appear on the surface to a reasonable person utter nonsense.

As far as what is an acceptable number of deaths, there is no exact figure, but are some deaths acceptable? Absolutely. Maybe even "a lot". Totally innocent people killed, even children? Unfortunate, but acceptable. Some of them due to stupid mistakes (in hindsight) in execution or strategy? That's ok too. It is going to happen in any military action -- it is an inherently messy business.

If they were due to carelessless or recklessless and has no purpose whatsoever and that could be determined beforehand? Then that is not acceptable. But of course that's always the debate -- trying to determine what is smart and what is not before you do it.

Believe it or not, there are people in situations/places where they know they are likely to get killed by a bomb and yet they are praying for the bombs to come. If I lived in Iraq under Saddam, I sure as hell would be praying for them, even if it meant they might bomb my own house with my kids in it. Maybe just "being alive" is enough for some of you -- for you the whole point of life is just to breathe. People must be kept breathing no matter what. That is not good enough for me.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

[46zilzal]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill
What a bunch of English crap!

[GameTheory]

What a bunch of English crap!So nothing is worth war, ever? That's putting a low value on life, not a high one...

[chickenhead]

Iraq lost around 500,000 in the Iran Iraq war, which was a full out hot war that lasted 8 years. Hard to believe the number of dead is so much higher now...it doesn't on its face pass the smell test.

[Greyfox]

if you can't give me any good reason to believe what would appear on the surface to a reasonable person utter nonsense.


Your premise is that you're a reasonable person. So I will accept that, as I don't know much about you.
Poo poo the study all you want. I didn't do the study.
I accept the belief that in a war torn country, more people die. Some of them will be innocent of no crime other than having to live in a dictatorship that they were born in.
The study purports to offer evidence, albeit weak, to support that belief.
How many people do you think have died? You say the study is out of touch with "reality." So what is the realistic assessment that you place on Iraqi deaths, based on your reasonable estimation? What would a "good" study done by reasonable honest researchers come up with for death counts, in your opinion?

[46zilzal]

So nothing is worth war, ever? That's putting a low value on life, not a high one...
Never said that. This current crap is one group's manifest destiny. It's not a war. It is the pratical extension of the New American Century propagandists.

Flag waving crap is just that:crap having lived through the debacle of Vietnam and watching what it did to the poor slobs who came home forever changed for the same outcome as Iraq: NOTHING.

[GameTheory]

Never said that. This current crap is one group's manifest destiny. It's not a war. It is the pratical extension of the New American Century progragandists.

Flag waving crap is just that:crapYou objected to the quote by John Stuart Mill, saying it was crap. The quote was made long before there even was an Iraq. Now you are changing the subject....

[46zilzal]

You objected to the quote by John Stuart Mill, saying it was crap. The quote was made long before there even was an Iraq. Now you are changing the subject....
War is generic. The same bull shit crap gets people to eliminate the rational.

[GameTheory]

Your premise is that you're a reasonable person. So I will accept that, as I don't know much about you.
Poo poo the study all you want. I didn't do the study.
I accept the belief that in a war torn country, more people die. Some of them will be innocent of no crime other than having to live in a dictatorship that they were born in.
The study purports to offer evidence, albeit weak, to support that belief.
How many people do you think have died? You say the study is out of touch with "reality." So what is the realistic assessment that you place on Iraqi deaths, based on your reasonable estimation? What would a "good" study done by reasonable honest researchers come up with for death counts, in your opinion?Why do you keep telling me you didn't do the study? Did I say you did? Who cares? You defend it, I say it is garbage, and then you say "Don't look at me, I didn't do the study" like I was the one that brought it up. If you don't want to talk about it, then stop talking about it.

As far as the true number, beats me. (I have heard estimates based on more reasonable conjecture that was many factors of magnitude lower, but I don't have them in front of me.) Maybe there is no way to tell. Picking a random high number, which is what I believe they did here, is not compelling in any case. The real number is much much lower. (It can't possibly be as high as 600,000 simply because you'd find some dead bodies, don't you think? There would be mounds of them all over the place. Where are they?)

Let's say I wanted to find out how many robberies there have been in your neighborhood in the last year. There are 5000 homes in the area. I go to five of them, and ask if they know anyone around here that has been robbed. All five say yes. (Unbeknownst to me, there did happen to be a robbery of a prominent person in the neighborhood that everybody knew, and they were all talking about the same person.) I go home and write up a report that the number of robberies in your neighborhood in the last year is estimated between 2500 and 5000. That's about how reasonable this Iraq study is. What is the true number? Who knows -- all we can say is that my method is not reliable and provides no evidence of anything at all except my stupidity or perhaps some agenda I might have to prove a high crime rate because I don't like the mayor...

[GameTheory]

War is generic. The same bull shit crap gets people to eliminate the rational.The quote said that anyone who thinks nothing is ever worth a war is a miserable person. You said the quote was crap, so I asked you if you ever thought war was worth it? You implied that in some cases it would be. It sounds like you agree with the quote. So what is "crap" about it?

[Greyfox]

As far as the true number, beats me....
The real number is much much lower. (It can't possibly be as high as 600,000 simply because you'd find some dead bodies, don't you think? There would be mounds of them all over the place. Where are they?)


Very convincing. ;)

[GameTheory]

Very convincing. ;)I'm not trying to convince you of anything except there is no reason to talk about the other study like it is evidence of something. Just someone uttering a number is not evidence. If you think the real number is that high, then where are the bodies? Is that an invalid question? If you don't care, or have no opinion, or can only repeat "I didn't do the study" -- then I repeat, stop talking about it...

[Greyfox]

then I repeat, stop talking about it...

I'm not. It only happens to be central to the thread starter. Why would anyone want to talk about what a thread starts about? Beats me. Maybe we should talk about the price of tea in China.
At any rate, I have a horse to go and bet.

[GameTheory]

I'm not. It only happens to be central to the thread starter. Why would anyone want to talk about what a thread starts about? Beats me. Maybe we should talk about the price of tea in China.
At any rate, I have a horse to go and bet.I see. You are forced to post in this thread. Guess I missed that part in the forum TOS...

[Racer98]

Never said that. This current crap is one group's manifest destiny. It's not a war. It is the pratical extension of the New American Century propagandists.

Flag waving crap is just that:crap having lived through the debacle of Vietnam and watching what it did to the poor slobs who came home forever changed for the same outcome as Iraq: NOTHING.

I agree. The "if you don't support the war, then you're evil" standpoint is one of the worst biased things I've ever seen. And we won't fight them at home if we leave them alone abroad. Did the Vietcong follow us home? No. Will the Iraquis who are against us follow us home? No.

[rastajenk]

Your short-sightedness is astounding. Did the VietCong ever hijack planes, and then sue the airline and the passengers on a plane later when they respond to suspicious activity? Did the VC ever stage large demonstrations because someone depicted Chairman Mao in a cartoon? Did the VC ever try to insinuate its own medieval sense of law and justice into court systems of other nations? Take a look at Europe today, and then claim that they will not follow us home.

There are a million ways today's situation is different from Viet Nam.

Giving in to tribalism and centuries of clan warfare over pursuing assimilation into democratic means of settling differences is weak-willed, stubborn, and, yes, stupid. One of the most biased reasonings I have seen repeated over the last four years is the notion that Middle Easterners in general, or Iraqis in particular, don't want democracy, can't handle democracy, or aren't culturally wired to engage in democracy. The same was said about slaves in this country and freedom; it was completely wrong then, and it is completely wrong now.

[PaceAdvantage]

And we won't fight them at home if we leave them alone abroad. Did the Vietcong follow us home? No. Will the Iraquis who are against us follow us home? No.

This is the second time you've brought up the "Vietcong" following us home defense....That's it! I've had it with you!

I'm invoking the never-before-used "Stupidity in Posting" law and banning your useless ass.

Considering all the stupid posts that came before yours in the past 7+ years of this board's existence, consider it an honor of sorts.

[hcap]

kenwoodallpromos.... Common snese 95% means they claim the REAL # is between 350,000 and 1,000,000, based on knocking on doors and asking if any of their relatives died since the war started, without requiring any proof.
Fine for any who think that is accurate and refuse to believe the Iraqi Govt numbers.
I do not sit at a desk at a liberal University and submit studys to a medical mag based on a few dozen cases and extrapulate for the whole population, or test rats, cats or dogs and figure medicine for humans
But I was an enumerator (census taker) in 1990Game TheoryBut since the data it is based on is ridiculous by common sense standards, I don't think it is asking to much to ask why I should give it a second thought if you can't give me any good reason to believe what would appear on the surface to a reasonable person utter nonsense.

The methodology used is well accepted by experts. I believe much more sophisticated that both of you are claiming. I have already linked to those experts previously. This is not census taking and not utter nonsense.
These techniques are used over and over again to sample larger populations.
Of course if you don't accept any possibility of these techniques working, I suppose another more recent study will also fall on deaf ears......

Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

"March 19, 2007 -- A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm — and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.

Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.

......The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

This is the third poll in Iraq sponsored by ABC News and media partners — in this case USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV — and the changes are grim. In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn't feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country's population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe."
.................................................. ...........................................

So the poll asked if a family member or close friend had been physically injured or killed by the war's violence, and 53% said yes. That is 13 million people.

If the injured to dead ratio is 20-1 that means that 650,000 million have been killed. Allowing for some margins of error, this is very much on track with the Lancet numbers.

So what in fact was the injured to dead ratio of those interviewed?
According to the much more cautious Iraq Body Count Project. The median injury-death ratio might be as high as 2.85 in well reported database cases. I agree we can't use the same numbers, but it shows how extreme the situation is. So although the polling techniques used by ABC and The Lancet are well supported in the field I am not suggesting the ratio is also 3.

But the levels of violence show certainly more than the 325 to 1 injured to dead ratio, according to blair and bush.
Bush claims 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed.
Or 1 killed in 325 injured
Hard to accept


http://www.counterpunch.org/dardagan08072003.html

"The Iraq Body Count Project has never published a running total of injuries suffered in the war because injuries encompass a scale from the grievous and incapacitating to the light and fully recuperable, and in the absence of information about severity it makes no sense to assign the same unit value to each report of injury.

....If one wished to answer the question "what is a typical, or average" ratio of injuries to deaths, there are two statistical averaging procedures which might be used. One is the mean ratio (the mean is the sum of all ratios divided by the number of incidents from which ratios could be calculated). The mean injury-death ratio is 5.0 (in other words, 5 injuries per death).

A second averaging procedure is the median ratio. This is found by setting out all 107 ratios in ascending order, and picking the ratio which occurs at the 54th position (i.e. in the middle of the series). The median injury-death ratio is 2.85 (in other words, around three injuries per death)."

[hcap]

Bush said at a press conference the report was not "credible" and that "the methodology is pretty well discredited. Blair also pretty much did the same. Considering that both b&b and their supporters have been wrong on most things, shouldn't we wonder when it takes an FOI act to get at the truth?

BTW, these were not a group of high school students handing out questionnaires at a baghdad bazaar. These are scientists from a respected public health school Johns Hopkins conducting a study funded by another respected school, MIT

Cluster sampling, in which researchers interview families from a few representative segments of society and then extrapolate out to arrive at an estimate, is how most surveys are conducted. It's how exit polls are run. It's also the method by which we've come to the figure the number of people killed in Darfur. Do you guys wanta argue about how many are being killed in Darfur too?

[GameTheory]

So the poll asked if a family member or close friend had been physically injured or killed by the war's violence, and 53% said yes. That is 13 million people.No, it isn't. People are counted multiple times in a question like that -- remember they aren't actually keeping tracks of names here -- just "do you know anyone who was killed or injured?" It also assumes people are being honest, which in this case is an extremely dubious assumption, to say the least.

If you die, and I ask 20 of your family members if they know a family member who died, all 20 will say yes -- 100%. Yet there has been only one death.

And so there rest of your analysis goes down the tubes because you've started with a outrageously high number to begin with.

[Greyfox]

No, it isn't. People are counted multiple times in a question like that -- remember they aren't actually keeping tracks of names here -- just "do you know anyone who was killed or injured?" .

GT, are you certain that was the type of question that the researchers asked?

[GameTheory]

GT, are you certain that was the type of question that the researchers asked?I'm not certain of anything they did -- that's part of the problem and one of the major criticisms of the study. In one case, they (apparently) claimed to interview 40 households in a single day (same interviewers). That is not plausible for these types of supposedly randomly selected interviews -- not enough time in the day to do anywhere close to that many. (According to other experts familiar with the techniques.) No one has been able to verify just how the data was gathered.

It is not just Bush & Co criticizing this study -- it is other "respected researchers" (since that is so important to you), the UN, etc. Now I'm willing to stipulate that other methods (counting reported deaths only, for instance) are likely to give a too low figure, but this one is way too high.

[hcap]

Your point is somewhat valid if the random sampling used close physical locations. Instead 458 sampling points distributed proportionate to population size in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. 458 distributed randomly among 26+million people in a country as large as Iraq (roughly same size as California ) would indicate fewer shared causalities. So it's not quite the same as questioning my extended family. The sampling methodology seems to indicate that there was likely distance separation of the sampling households. The likelihood of "If you die, and I ask 20 of your family members if they know a family member who died, all 20 will say yes -- 100%. Yet there has been only one death." is reduced if the respondents live 20 miles away from each other versus around the corner. And for that matter what are the chances of 20 members of my family being interviewed versus maybe 1 of my family and 19 strangers. I think you have exaggerated your basic objection

Granted there were some duplicates, and the 13 million should be reduced. But not by a lot.

"March 19, 2007 -- This survey was conducted for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul. Interviews were conducted in person, in Arabic or Kurdish, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis aged 18 and up from Feb. 25-March 5, 2007.

Four hundred and fifty-eight sampling points were distributed proportionate to population size in each of Iraq's 18 provinces, then in each of the 102 districts within the provinces, then by simple random sampling among Iraq's nearly 11,000 villages or neighborhoods, with urban/rural stratification at each stage.

Maps or grids were used to select random starting points within each sampling point, with household selection by random interval and within-household selection by the "next-birthday" method. An average of five interviews were conducted per sampling point. Three of the 458 sampling points were inaccessible for security reasons and were substituted with randomly selected replacements.

.................................................. ..........


So even if we reduce 13 million because of some duplicates, what injury to death ratio do you think is more likely. 1 in 20, 1 in 10, or 1 in 300??

Btw the Lancet study was a more structured and followed the standards of epidemiological studies. Cluster sampling is a well-established in statistics, and is routinely used to estimate casualties in natural disasters or war zones. The methods used by this study are the only scientific methods we have for discovering death rates in war torn countries without the infrastructure to report all deaths through central means.

Your criticism may be applied to car bombs within a densely populated region. Claims that overall rates of death could be affected by the fact that deaths with specific causes could be correlated: a car bomb, for example, could kill several people at once in neighboring houses.

If the sample happened to take place in a neighborhood that took a bad hit from car bombs, then it could lead to an incorrect extrapolation to the whole population, when, the researchers just happened to sample a badly-hit area. It is standard statistical protocol in a cluster sampling survey to take this into account.

“The SE (standard error) for mortality rates were calculated with robust variance estimation that took into account the correlation between rates of death within the same cluster over time.

”The authors adjust for the fact that there is higher correlation within clusters than across clusters. As the authors point out in their analysis section"

.................................................. ....................................
An October 11, 2006 Washington Post article [4] reports:

"The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 [2006] by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after. The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates."

[chickenhead]

which study are we talking about? The Hopkins poll was 47 clusters of 40 households. Isn't that where the 600K comes from?

[chickenhead]

50% of the population gets injured.

600K violent deaths.

of violent deaths, its 10-1 male to female ratio (from lancet).


so 550K dead males and 55K dead females. But you have those 13 million violent injuries. Which is half the country. But hardly any females have died. So have hardly any females been injured? That would mean that every single male has been injured? Or have lots of females been injured violently (truck bombs, etc) but they don't die?

One of those must be true, based on the data. Either every male in the country has been injured violently, or females don't die, despite being wounded by the same bombs.

Weird.

[hcap]

10% of 13,000,000 is 1,300,000
More like 5% dead. Out of 12 million+injured. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Imagine that in your state

Yes the Lancet said 600,000. However the more recent one is the March 19, 2007 -- This survey was conducted for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul. Interviews were conducted in person, in Arabic or Kurdish, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis aged 18 and up from Feb. 25-March 5, 2007.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

Tends to support the levels of violence and injury pointed out by the Lancet.
I am questioning the injury to death ratio. Based on...
The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.I believe there is some truth to GT's objections but not as much as he thinks.

And I seriously doubt bush and blair. The under reporting of Iraqi civilian deaths is following the pattern of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tilman, and "last throes"
PR and CYA strategies,

[chickenhead]

btw - whatever the numbers, they are too high. I am not at all happy with what has gone on in Iraq. That's why I have been supportive of more troops there, and a better strategy to secure Baghdad. If we left now, many more Iraqis would die, and I don't want that to happen. In fact I think we probably need even more troops right now.

[GameTheory]

Wikipedia has an overview. Can't vouch for the accuracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2 003_invasion_of_Iraq

[hcap]

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/images/thelan3.gif
The Lancet Sampling

Random samplings would cut down on the error from "shared" casualties. Bagdhad, a city of close to 6 million-5,948,800, had 12 randomly chosen clusters.

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/thelancetstudy.htm

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts.

The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs.

If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate.

Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping.

The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion."
________________
What the survey does say is that they did not record info off the certificate to exclude thew many copies various extended families had.
____________
"widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm"
Can you please repost without all the biased adjectives getting in the way of the false # brainwashing?
___________
BTW- during each census including the 1990 which I did, information is gathered concerning any household (as opposed to the vague terms relative and/or famlily member) member who died following the previous census (called Mortality Schedule), so in that respect it WAS like your survey.

[hcap]

Ken,

With all due respect, the methodology used by the Lancet is not census taking. Nor is it designed to deal with situations where death certificates and functioning morgues are the the usual way of estimating causalities.

War zones are much more difficult to use standard census methodology.
Do you also dispute the figures from Darfur? From Wiki...

.................................................. .......................................

'Roberts' team was chosen for their experience in estimating total mortality in war zones, for example his estimate of 1.7 million deaths due to the war in the Congo[5] which not only met with widespread acceptance and no challenge when published in 2000,[6] but resulted and was cited in a U.N. Security Council resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, a United Nations request for $140 million in aid, and the US State Department pledging an additional $10 million in aid. Similar studies have been accepted uncritically as estimates of wartime mortality in Darfur[7] and Bosnia."

[Tom]

GT, are you certain that was the type of question that the researchers asked?

If you don't know the EXACT questions asked, there is no way you can interpret the answers. In any poll. I will bet dollars to donuts there was no list of every dead person used to validate the so-called answers to that so-called poll.

[hcap]

The procedure and some questions......

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/thelancetstudy.htm

"The survey purpose was explained to the head of household or spouse, and oral consent was obtained. Participants were assured that no unique identifiers would be gathered. No incentives were provided. The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period. Separation of combatant from non-combatant deaths during interviews was not attempted, since such information would probably be concealed by household informants, and to ask about this could put interviewers at risk. Deaths were recorded only if the decedent had lived in the household continuously for 3 months before the event. Additional probing was done to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths to the extent feasible, taking into account family sensitivities. At the conclusion of household interviews where deaths were reported, surveyors requested to see a copy of any death certificate and its presence was recorded. Where differences between the household account and the cause mentioned on the certificate existed, further discussions were sometimes needed to establish the primary cause of death.

The study received ethical approval from the Committee on Human Research of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, and the School of Medicine, Al Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq.

[46zilzal]

The Lancet is a very well respected journal founded in 1823. It has stood the test of time and criticism.

[Tom]

Then provide the Exact wording of the question so we can all judge what was asked. Hcap, you got it handy?

[hcap]

You have to register.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext

All the technical details of the study. Don't know if specific set of questions were asked. Seems pretty detailed.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period."
__
THe above means thaty all war deaths on both sides were counted, including all in Hussein's army killed and all insurgents killed as of the survey dat, with no separation for enemy deaths. That means also that "death certificates" maintained by Hussein were assumed to be accurate.

[hcap]

THe above means thaty all war deaths on both sides were counted, including all in Hussein's army killed and all insurgents killed as of the survey dat, with no separation for enemy deaths. That means also that "death certificates" maintained by Hussein were assumed to be accurate.No it does not. But even if it included all Iraqi military killed and remember rumsfeld refused to do body counts, how many Iraqi military were killed? I found this..

"Before the war, military analysts said Iraq had 389,000 full-time active duty military personnel, including 80,000 Republican Guard soldiers."

So even if 50,000 of the Iraqi military were killed, and the Lancet mistakingly included all, it would still leave over 500,000 civilian deaths according to the Lancet report."

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html"

[Greyfox]

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html"

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html

Thanks kenwoodallpromos

[Greyfox]

The John Hopkins article is good reading. One final conclusion was:

"Whatever one's opinion of its possible limitations, the 2006 Iraq mortality survey produced epidemiological evidence that coalition forces have failed to protect Iraqi civilians."

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html"
"Over three weeks, six trained Iraqi volunteers surveyed 7,868 people in 33 locations throughout the country. They asked each person several questions. From January 1, 2002, up to the day of the interview, how many people in your household were born? How many died? What did they die from, and when?"
This was supposed to be from 1,849 households. So they asked 4 people in each household how many died, did not record the names or addresses, never released the death certificates. All that has to be done is to compare death certificates for duplicates (supposedly over 5,000 sampling certificates). 90% violent deaths were males.
Why did John Hopkins never make the actual death certificates public? that would give an exact account of the samples.

[hcap]

Apparently death certificates did constitute a large element of the study....


Dr. Burnham explained: “We have to do samples. Much of public health is all about doing surveys...There is nothing that beats [like a national census] going out to the population and asking. That is the ‘gold standard’ of estimating populations, deaths and so forth...In sampling, we have a principle called: ‘Sampling Proportion to Population Size.’ That means bigger places get more samples than smaller places and in that way it is representative of the whole country.” After elaborating on how an earlier 2004 mortality survey in Iraq was done and its results, Dr. Burnham moved on to the relevant 2006 survey. It was conducted between May 20 and July 10, 2006. The survey team had the assistance of eight Iraqi physicians--all trained “in heath surveys and community medicine, all fluent in English and Arabic.” (3)

Continuing, Dr. Burnham said: “In the 2006 survey [with respect to sampling]...we had 47 clusters (locations/places). We did a year of serious thinking about how to sample...We got the best advice. And, this is what we ended up with. We had now 40 households per cluster, instead of 30 (in 2004 survey), and we ended up with 12,000, instead of 9,000 individuals (as in 2004)... We sampled according to where the population was. So, there were 12 samples/clusters in Baghdad...Our team went to the houses and they got causes of deaths, dates of deaths and details...In 92 percent of the households, where we asked, the family had a ‘death certificate.’ I can’t think of another place in the world that would produce this kind of data. But this is a great argument [against] the people who say: ‘families made up the data on deaths.’ I mean the chance of people all over Iraq faking death certificates just because a Hopkins interviewer might come is pretty remote.”

[lsbets]

Still holding out hope, huh Hcap?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Random? How about average? 600,000= over 400 per day- where are all the bodies and why is the average more than the highest 1-day total ever reported by any liberal media since "shock and awe"?
12 months to "think" about sampling and Hopkins has no common sense involved!

[Show Me the Wire]

Apparently, Dr. Burnham's won't let release his baisc facts supporting his findings, which clearly effects the credibility of this report. Probably insufficient death certificates. Now he is censured,

[PaceAdvantage]

More details please...link? All this hiding of info is odd given the age of Obama which was supposed to usher in a whole new level of transparency.

Then again, I'm still waiting to read stuff from Obama's academic past that Columbia and/or Harvard still refuse to release.

[Show Me the Wire]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7869317.stm sorry for my brain cramp

[HUSKER55]

I don't know why anyone is debating. There is still conflict so evidentaly there was not enough of them killed to make a difference. So any number is light.

Just curious, does anyone know how many iraqi people fought along side the coalition forces during the war and after?

[JustRalph]

As usual the Dems were wrong on the war

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/05/discredited-lancet-study-gets-even-more-discredited/


http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6799754&page=1


Now this asshole is going to get fired............ :lol:

[JustRalph]

Bush said at a press conference the report was not "credible" and that "the methodology is pretty well discredited. Blair also pretty much did the same. Considering that both b&b and their supporters have been wrong on most things, shouldn't we wonder when it takes an FOI act to get at the truth?

BTW, these were not a group of high school students handing out questionnaires at a baghdad bazaar. These are scientists from a respected public health school Johns Hopkins conducting a study funded by another respected school, MIT

Cluster sampling, in which researchers interview families from a few representative segments of society and then extrapolate out to arrive at an estimate, is how most surveys are conducted. It's how exit polls are run. It's also the method by which we've come to the figure the number of people killed in Darfur. Do you guys wanta argue about how many are being killed in Darfur too?

10% of 13,000,000 is 1,300,000
More like 5% dead. Out of 12 million+injured. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Imagine that in your state

Yes the Lancet said 600,000. However the more recent one is the March 19, 2007 -- This survey was conducted for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul. Interviews were conducted in person, in Arabic or Kurdish, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis aged 18 and up from Feb. 25-March 5, 2007.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

Tends to support the levels of violence and injury pointed out by the Lancet.
I am questioning the injury to death ratio. Based on...
I believe there is some truth to GT's objections but not as much as he thinks.

And I seriously doubt bush and blair. The under reporting of Iraqi civilian deaths is following the pattern of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tilman, and "last throes"
PR and CYA strategies,


'Roberts' team was chosen for their experience in estimating total mortality in war zones, for example his estimate of 1.7 million deaths due to the war in the Congo[5] which not only met with widespread acceptance and no challenge when published in 2000,[6] but resulted and was cited in a U.N. Security Council resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, a United Nations request for $140 million in aid, and the US State Department pledging an additional $10 million in aid. Similar studies have been accepted uncritically as estimates of wartime mortality in Darfur[7] and Bosnia."

The procedure and some questions......

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/thelancetstudy.htm

"The survey purpose was explained to the head of household or spouse, and oral consent was obtained. Participants were assured that no unique identifiers would be gathered. No incentives were provided. The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period. Separation of combatant from non-combatant deaths during interviews was not attempted, since such information would probably be concealed by household informants, and to ask about this could put interviewers at risk. Deaths were recorded only if the decedent had lived in the household continuously for 3 months before the event. Additional probing was done to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths to the extent feasible, taking into account family sensitivities. At the conclusion of household interviews where deaths were reported, surveyors requested to see a copy of any death certificate and its presence was recorded. Where differences between the household account and the cause mentioned on the certificate existed, further discussions were sometimes needed to establish the primary cause of death.

The study received ethical approval from the Committee on Human Research of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, and the School of Medicine, Al Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq.

The Lancet is a very well respected journal founded in 1823. It has stood the test of time and criticism.

Apparently death certificates did constitute a large element of the study....


Dr. Burnham explained: “We have to do samples. Much of public health is all about doing surveys...There is nothing that beats [like a national census] going out to the population and asking. That is the ‘gold standard’ of estimating populations, deaths and so forth...In sampling, we have a principle called: ‘Sampling Proportion to Population Size.’ That means bigger places get more samples than smaller places and in that way it is representative of the whole country.” After elaborating on how an earlier 2004 mortality survey in Iraq was done and its results, Dr. Burnham moved on to the relevant 2006 survey. It was conducted between May 20 and July 10, 2006. The survey team had the assistance of eight Iraqi physicians--all trained “in heath surveys and community medicine, all fluent in English and Arabic.” (3)

Continuing, Dr. Burnham said: “In the 2006 survey [with respect to sampling]...we had 47 clusters (locations/places). We did a year of serious thinking about how to sample...We got the best advice. And, this is what we ended up with. We had now 40 households per cluster, instead of 30 (in 2004 survey), and we ended up with 12,000, instead of 9,000 individuals (as in 2004)... We sampled according to where the population was. So, there were 12 samples/clusters in Baghdad...Our team went to the houses and they got causes of deaths, dates of deaths and details...In 92 percent of the households, where we asked, the family had a ‘death certificate.’ I can’t think of another place in the world that would produce this kind of data. But this is a great argument [against] the people who say: ‘families made up the data on deaths.’ I mean the chance of people all over Iraq faking death certificates just because a Hopkins interviewer might come is pretty remote.”


Chicken Head had the best post in the thread,,,,,,,,, "It doesn't pass the smell test" you know why............because it was just another giant perch

http://www.utoledo.edu/as/lec/images/fishery/perch.png

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe the words "completely useless" were used in one of those links to describe the Lancet study at this point.

You hear that hcap and 46zilzal (I know you still read the board 46...you can't stay away).

Completely useless.

And look how you guys defended this apparently piece of junk science...like you were defending your own mother.

Way to go fellas! :ThmbUp::rolleyes:

[Tom]

And look how you guys defended this apparently piece of junk science...like you were defending your own mother.

Way to go fellas! :ThmbUp::rolleyes:

.....or, or, or, like you were defending global warming! :lol::lol::lol:

[JustRalph]

HCAP started this thread relying on the Lancet...........

As time goes by........ HCAP looks more like a BOOBY

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Floyd | Tuesday, 8th of June 2010 at 05:53:29 AM
The British medical journal Lancet has become somewhat well-known for publishing a study of Iraqi war dead putting the number of civilian and combatant dead at around 650,000 from 2003 into 2006. New research seems to show that not only is that number wrong, but the study on which it is based shows signs of ethical lapses. Here’s the abstract to the new study:

This paper considers the second Lancet survey of mortality in Iraq published in October 2006. It presents some evidence suggesting ethical violations to the survey’s respondents including endangerment, privacy breaches and violations in obtaining informed consent. Breaches of minimal disclosure standards examined include non-disclosure of the survey’s questionnaire, data-entry form, data matching anonymised interviewer identifications with households and sample design. The paper also presents some evidence relating to data fabrication and falsification, which falls into nine broad categories. This evidence suggests that this survey cannot be considered a reliable or valid contribution towards knowledge about the extent of mortality in Iraq since 2003.

read more about this sham at the link

http://www.threedonia.com/archives/25191