times online (u.k.)
Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion?
The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis one in 40 of the population had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these excess deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire.
Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency.
The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.
Iraq Body Count says there is considerable cause for scepticism and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.
it gets more steadily uncomfortable the further you read, especially this:
The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions, contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated. The paper had no scientific standing. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? No.
if these guys lose their jobs, there is some good news: they have a calling at the CIA
Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion?
The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis one in 40 of the population had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these excess deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire.
Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency.
The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.
Iraq Body Count says there is considerable cause for scepticism and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.
it gets more steadily uncomfortable the further you read, especially this:
The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions, contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated. The paper had no scientific standing. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? No.
if these guys lose their jobs, there is some good news: they have a calling at the CIA
