![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| ||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
| | #1 | ||
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | Iraqi Death Toll Hugely Underestimated Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey Dr Les Roberts PhD a , Riyadh Lafta MD b, Prof Richard Garfield DrPH c, Jamal Khudhairi MD b and Gilbert Burnham MD a Elsevier Quote:
-Excess deaths is constituted by estimates of death toll during Sadaam's 20 year reign and applying that same rate of death over collection period From full text: Quote:
| ||
| | |
| | #2 | |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | More: Iraqi dead: Do the figures lie? Hamilton Spectator - Iraqi dead: Do the figures lie? Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Banned | I'm seeing more and more reports that look like this lately. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that, maybe reports like this are perhaps just a little more accurate than the ones from our esteemed and oh-so-trustworthy government. |
| | |
| | #4 | |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #5 | |
| Resident Paranoid Extremist | Quote:
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess." - Ronald Coase To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | |
| | |
| | #6 | |
| Serenity Now! Board Administrator | Quote:
Last time I checked the Brookings Institution has nothing to do with our government. These reporters wouldn't fudge the facts or anything though, right Dan Rather? I find tinsel distracting. | |
| | |
| | #7 | |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | Quote:
This isn't a newspaper though, and I provided a link to the full citation, registration is free. This is a cohort study whose first sample was taken before the war and a period during. It was conducted by the Lancet, one of the most widely regarded Medical Journals on the planet, funded by MIT and headed by a professor from Johns Hopkins. It was also peer reviewed by 4 independent professionals. It used Iraqi doctors so translation was not an issue, provided alternate statistics for its critics to external validity, measurement reliablity and validity, and any internal validity. Not trying to sound like a **** either, just stating the facts. | |
| | |
| | #8 | |
| Serenity Now! Board Administrator | Quote:
I also provided the Iraqi index from the Brookings Institution as well for all the statistics from the Iraqi and US governments as well as civilian orginizations and even those will be underestimated because its impossible to accurately assess statisitics within a warzone. The US government has even acknowledeged this. You also have to take into account that the mortality rates and death toll during Saddam's reign were extremely....flawed. I find tinsel distracting. | |
| | |
| | #9 | |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #10 |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | And I will agree with the mobilization of bias as it pertains to the media, just wanted to note that IMO, I didn't feel as if the Lancet report was politically timed. |
| | |
| | #11 | |
| Serenity Now! Board Administrator | Quote:
I have a feeling it wasn't 5.5/1000 people. Plus I also find it hard to believe that if we killed 650,000 people we would just be finding this out now. Its not like you can hide that many bodies without it getting out. There has to be some sort of physical evidence and I don't think the Brookings Institute would fudge the number x 10. Is it more thant what Bush says? Of course, he's going by the Brookings Institute which are the official numbers based on a body count and the US government acknowledges that it isn't accurate but I really don't see this methodology being accurate in a warzone. "12,801 people, at 47 different locations chosen at random in Iraq." I just find it hard to base a report of 12,801 people for a population over 25 million, but thats me.... I find tinsel distracting. | |
| | |
| | #12 | |
| Binging on Pure ****ing Rage Board Sponsor | Quote:
The physical evidence was based on proof of death by death certificate. The minimum number was calculated with the change of infant death rate, and the elimination of the Falluja cluster and the number still came out to ~400,000. Of those 31% were estimated from Coalition forces, which the research goes into detail as well. As for the sample survey structure, social scientists do the exact same kind of thing in everyday applications with less people and extrapolate that to the entire population of the United States. It is a widely accepted social research method. EDIT: The authors also adress the warzone issue as well and provide their basis for collection there. A proportionate amount of samples were in the Fallujah cluster and the same death certificate method was shown as well. | |
| | |
| | #13 |
| Serenity Now! Board Administrator |