Anyone have evidence to prove Bush's claim about deaths in Iraq? - Page 5

kurto · #41 10-12-2006, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are grasping at straws by claiming that because they hired Iraqis the results were probably faked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep....this explains why the data is so crappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Felix knows the reliable way to provide this data is to just make it up. I'm guessing his problem with the methodology of the study is they actually went out and took samples and used that information to provide estimates.

Obviously this doesn't work-- the correct methodology is start with an opinion (for example, most people in prison are illegal immigrants) and then make up a statistic that would seem to support your opinion.

RedBean · #42 10-12-2006, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if only the grand proclamations of our Glorious Leader Bush were put under the same "question everything" microscope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya really. I bet I couldn't find a single post here that is critical of Bush.

SimonAllan · #43 10-12-2006, 04:58 PM

Of course, this research is peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, which has a considerable reputation to preserve. Additionally, the authors have no interest in inflating the number of detahs in Iraq. On the other hand, President Bush and the Iraqi Government both have an obvious interest in minimising the estimated death figure.

2/325Falcon · #44 10-12-2006, 06:17 PM

From the CNN link...

[ QUOTE ]
They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

[/ QUOTE ]

RedBean · #45 10-12-2006, 11:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this research is peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, which has a considerable reputation to preserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said about the study the Lancet published where the researcher later admitted to completely making up 900 research subjects, and that he completely faked the data.

That paper made it through peer review and into the Lancet without drawing suspicion.

Chris Alger · #46 10-13-2006, 01:04 AM

The study examined all deaths over three years from 1,880 households. Although the researches found that 92% of these deaths were "caused by violence," the total sample would include deaths from crime, old age, disease, accidents, the insurgency and sectarian violence, the last two of which are obviously attributable to the war and chaos the U.S. electively unleashed.

wacki · #47 10-13-2006, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this research is peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, which has a considerable reputation to preserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said about the study the Lancet published where the researcher later admitted to completely making up 900 research subjects, and that he completely faked the data.

That paper made it through peer review and into the Lancet without drawing suspicion.

[/ QUOTE ]

that study debunked here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/439248b.html

Saying it didn't raise suspicion is unfair to the journals. They can't just say "we don't believe your data". If the methodology is correct you publish it and wait for someone to replicate it. If the data is faked it's a career ending move.

Peer review merely checks methodology. It is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. This is why it's too early to judge this study. It needs independent replication.

ElliotR · #48 10-13-2006, 06:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is why it's too early to judge this study. It needs independent replication.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. It's never too early to question the integrity of those who report study results we don't like. I mean, why fight data with data when you can just make ad hominem attacks. Right, Redbean?

wacki · #49 10-13-2006, 08:44 AM

Just in case anyone cares this is the last paragraph of the study:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/im...3606694919.pdf

At the conclusion of our 2004 study8 we urged that an
independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw
in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe
that an independent international body to monitor
compliance with the Geneva Conventions and other
humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed.

Maybe we should give them what they want.

nicky g · #50 10-13-2006, 09:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he [Bush] added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the journal is peer-reviewed and that such a review would include checking the methodology, can we agree that this statement of Bush's is ignorant and wrong?