Comments on: The Lancet Study, Mach 2: Revenge Of The Bullspit http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:29:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: RINO Sightings: Crime and Punishment Edition » Politechnical http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-107781 RINO Sightings: Crime and Punishment Edition » Politechnical Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:41:22 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-107781 [...] Mark at Decision ‘08 also examines the Lancet study, and uses history as a guide to the Lancet’s authenticity. Hilarity ensues. [...] [...] Mark at Decision ‘08 also examines the Lancet study, and uses history as a guide to the Lancet’s authenticity. Hilarity ensues. [...]

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-107214 Mark Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:50:36 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-107214 Yes, and when will you men of straw learn to accept the wisdom of the progressives? Yes, and when will you men of straw learn to accept the wisdom of the progressives?

]]> By: Tom http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-107107 Tom Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:00:23 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-107107 #25 said: Dominion, how could such a large number of deaths occur every day and no one notice? Iraq is full of people who are against the war: NGOs, human rights groups, Iraqi groups, journalists - no one has ever claimed such an incredible level of carnage... Actually, journalists report the carnage all the time but right-wingers consistently dismiss the reports as the work of a "liberal media that never reports the good news." Reporter Jane Arraf recently wrote: "I don't know a single family here that hasn't had a relative, neighbor or friend die violently. In places where there's been all-out fighting going on, I've interviewed parents who buried their dead child in the yard because it was too dangerous to go to the morgue." #46 said: By the way, the Primary Investigator in this study has described the Iraq War as a “fiasco”. That it may be, but those are hardly the words of a dispassionate scientist... Ummm, I think they are the words of any human being who has been paying attention to what's happening in this war. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they give up their right to an opinion, especially one that is so patently obvious. When are you right-wingers going to start holding your leaders accountable? Or is that "personal responsibility" credo you espouse just meant for people other than yourselves? #25 said: Dominion, how could such a large number of deaths occur every day and no one notice? Iraq is full of people who are against the war: NGOs, human rights groups, Iraqi groups, journalists – no one has ever claimed such an incredible level of carnage…

Actually, journalists report the carnage all the time but right-wingers consistently dismiss the reports as the work of a “liberal media that never reports the good news.” Reporter Jane Arraf recently wrote: “I don’t know a single family here that hasn’t had a relative, neighbor or friend die violently. In places where there’s been all-out fighting going on, I’ve interviewed parents who buried their dead child in the yard because it was too dangerous to go to the morgue.”

#46 said: By the way, the Primary Investigator in this study has described the Iraq War as a “fiasco”. That it may be, but those are hardly the words of a dispassionate scientist…

Ummm, I think they are the words of any human being who has been paying attention to what’s happening in this war. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they give up their right to an opinion, especially one that is so patently obvious.

When are you right-wingers going to start holding your leaders accountable? Or is that “personal responsibility” credo you espouse just meant for people other than yourselves?

]]> By: Edward http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106397 Edward Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:54:49 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106397 News just in:(no not really) Bush's War Blamed for 6 Billion Deaths A new study by Joes' Pizza and Deli(open 7AM-9PM est/4AM-6PM pst) Mon-Sat, recieved by The Lancet proves 6 billion people will die within the next 250 years from varied causes. Bush's Iraq war blamed for detracting from solving the rising death from old age pandemic. The exhaustive study was conducted by asking 2 of the 22,000 people alive now in his town if they expected to be alive in 250 years. To be fair, 18 dead people were also asked if they were going to still be dead in 250 years. The results were extrapilated to show that the entire population of Earth is going to die. No film at 11. News just in:(no not really)
Bush’s War Blamed for 6 Billion Deaths

A new study by Joes’ Pizza and Deli(open 7AM-9PM est/4AM-6PM pst) Mon-Sat, recieved by The Lancet proves 6 billion people will die within the next 250 years from varied causes. Bush’s Iraq war blamed for detracting from solving the rising death from old age pandemic. The exhaustive study was conducted by asking 2 of the 22,000 people alive now in his town if they expected to be alive in 250 years. To be fair, 18 dead people were also asked if they were going to still be dead in 250 years. The results were extrapilated to show that the entire population of Earth is going to die.
No film at 11.

]]> By: DomesticatedDog http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106335 DomesticatedDog Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:10:34 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106335 The information you are reading on this web page is false. The public has been misinformed as to what the data shows. Please visit the following link for more accurate information. <a href="http://thestruggleforpower.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://thestruggleforpower.blogspot.com/</a> The information you are reading on this web page is false. The public has been misinformed as to what the data shows. Please visit the following link for more accurate information.

http://thestruggleforpower.blogspot.com/

]]> By: Chaos http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106264 Chaos Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:43:37 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106264 Whoever that idiot whining for proof that 500 people aren't dying a day... Ever heard of burden of proof? Apparently not. It is the responsibility of those who conducted and wrote the study to account for the apparently unnoticed 500 deaths a day. It is not the responsibility of the people who express skepticism to prove a negative: that 500 people aren't dying, unnoticed, a day in Iraq. Whatever happened to simple logic? Whoever that idiot whining for proof that 500 people aren’t dying a day…

Ever heard of burden of proof? Apparently not. It is the responsibility of those who conducted and wrote the study to account for the apparently unnoticed 500 deaths a day. It is not the responsibility of the people who express skepticism to prove a negative: that 500 people aren’t dying, unnoticed, a day in Iraq.

Whatever happened to simple logic?

]]> By: On the new Lancet Study at politburo diktat 2.0 http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106244 On the new Lancet Study at politburo diktat 2.0 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:40:17 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106244 [...] Most of the blogosphere has weighed in on the new report, which estimates that there have been 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since April, 2003. Commentators, left and right, have weighed in predictably, uncritically accepting it and sternly dismissing it, respectively. [...] [...] Most of the blogosphere has weighed in on the new report, which estimates that there have been 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since April, 2003. Commentators, left and right, have weighed in predictably, uncritically accepting it and sternly dismissing it, respectively. [...]

]]> By: TallDave http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106172 TallDave Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:58:09 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106172 To illustrate the importance of the interval, consider that you have just built a bridge. You tell everyone "I've done a study, and this bridge can support 100,000 tons." A few days later, the bridge collapses under the weight of only 50,000 tons. You scratch your head and say "Well, I don't understand. The 95% confidence interval was 8,000 to 194,000, so 100,000 was the most likely number." Your engineer slaps you and says "You fool! That meant there was a 95% probability it wouldn't collapse at less than 8,000 tons! There was no statistical weight to your 100,000 number. " 100,000 was basically a guess. To illustrate the importance of the interval, consider that you have just built a bridge. You tell everyone “I’ve done a study, and this bridge can support 100,000 tons.” A few days later, the bridge collapses under the weight of only 50,000 tons. You scratch your head and say “Well, I don’t understand. The 95% confidence interval was 8,000 to 194,000, so 100,000 was the most likely number.”

Your engineer slaps you and says “You fool! That meant there was a 95% probability it wouldn’t collapse at less than 8,000 tons! There was no statistical weight to your 100,000 number. ”

100,000 was basically a guess.

]]> By: Tom http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106170 Tom Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:55:51 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106170 I'd like to point out that calling people stupid or evil is not an argument. The simple fact of the matter is, these numbers are FAR higher than anyone who has followed the war in Iraq considers plausible. Iraq Body Count, very much an anti-war organization, has tabulated 48,693 deaths in Iraq - and they REALLY look for them. IBC syas that they believe the numbers are actually higher than this, but even they expressed surprise at the Lancet numbers. It simply beggars belief that a committed organization like Iraq Body Count would have somehow missed 93% of all deaths in Iraq, along with the International media and everyone else. As I noted above, I do not have a closed mind on this issue - the study MIGHT be true - but if it is, there is something going on in Iraq that all major pro and anti war organizations in Iraq have missed. Applying Occam's Razor, it seems much more reasonable to believe that the data used was taintd, especially given the situation in Iraq at the time. I’d like to point out that calling people stupid or evil is not an argument. The simple fact of the matter is, these numbers are FAR higher than anyone who has followed the war in Iraq considers plausible. Iraq Body Count, very much an anti-war organization, has tabulated 48,693 deaths in Iraq – and they REALLY look for them. IBC syas that they believe the numbers are actually higher than this, but even they expressed surprise at the Lancet numbers. It simply beggars belief that a committed organization like Iraq Body Count would have somehow missed 93% of all deaths in Iraq, along with the International media and everyone else. As I noted above, I do not have a closed mind on this issue – the study MIGHT be true – but if it is, there is something going on in Iraq that all major pro and anti war organizations in Iraq have missed. Applying Occam’s Razor, it seems much more reasonable to believe that the data used was taintd, especially given the situation in Iraq at the time.

]]> By: TallDave http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/comment-page-2/#comment-106168 TallDave Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:49:43 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/10/the-lancet-study-mach-2-revenge-of-the-bullspit/#comment-106168 <i>Please give some credable source for your 83,000 number Saddam killed per year</i> You can check wikipedia or any other source. Saddam is conservatively estimated to have killed -- directly, not by "excess deaths" -- some 2 million people (who knows how much higher the excess deaths number would be using the Lancet method -- 10 million? 20 million?) over the course of his 24-year reign in the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and various civil wars. UN estimates would actually be higher. By sampling a tiny, relatively peaceful portion of Saddam's reign, they skew the comparison and give a misleading result. It would be as though they sampled only the most peaceful month of the occupation. Please give some credable source for your 83,000 number Saddam killed per year

You can check wikipedia or any other source. Saddam is conservatively estimated to have killed — directly, not by “excess deaths” — some 2 million people (who knows how much higher the excess deaths number would be using the Lancet method — 10 million? 20 million?) over the course of his 24-year reign in the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and various civil wars. UN estimates would actually be higher.

By sampling a tiny, relatively peaceful portion of Saddam’s reign, they skew the comparison and give a misleading result. It would be as though they sampled only the most peaceful month of the occupation.

]]>