BlogMatrix
 

655,000 Iraqi deaths -- even CNN is dubious

edit David Janes 2006-10-11 10:19 UTC 4 comments  ·

CNN reports:

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

The Lancet, you'll remember, was responsible for another phony-baloney "study" of Iraq war written by a crowd of anti-war crazies that used very dubious statistical techniques (i.e. go to the neighbourhood where the worst fighting is and extrapolate to the entire population) to come up with similar numbers in the past.

The last Lancet "study" came out just before the last US election. Remember when doctors used to be interested in medicine?

More interesting is their claim that "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003". I.e. if the invasion had not have happened, we would have expected to see 220,000 deaths over the last 3 years under Saddam's regime, as compared to the Iraq Body Count's 50,000. (Note that there's probably issues with the 200,000+ number too, since that rate be based on another phoney story).

That's not to say things haven't gone to ratshit recently; there's a lot more to be said there too.

Read all posts on the Lancet study.

Comment #1Engineer

2006-10-13 17:00:40
1 dead for every 4 randomly selected home. That's bad no matter how you look at it. (They interviewed 1,840 random people and found over 547 dead - 92% of those showed the death certificate)

If you think about it we've dropped over 240,000 cluster bombs. We'd be fools to think they didn't kill anyone. Add in gunfire and car bombs and 600,000 dead doesn't seem that big.

Comment #2David Janes

2006-10-13 18:51:36

Cluster bombs are scary, right?

During the invasion phase, Deutsche Welle - hardly a US friendly outfit - had reports about how the Iraqis used to line up and watch the bombings because they knew where they were going to land.

Other issues: the random selection process, observer bias, and the applicability of the the surveyed area to all of Iraq. Add in that the same people are claiming that around the same number were killed/starved in the previous 10 years ... because of US sanctions ... and you're suddenly starting to talk about a million+ of graves. You can actually travel to places where tens of thousands of people have died and the graves actually take up quite a bit of space.

Simply put, this study is about as fair, accurate and political as one of Tito's five year plans. The authors of the study are more than aware that there's a ready audience for this sort of "big lie", the bigger the better.

Comment #3charlie

2006-10-13 23:08:40

the methodology for sampling clusters of houses is statistically very well  known and used all over the world and has been since the 1940's. The computation of mean and variance are common in statistics for cluster sampling.   References to it can be found in Cochran's classic Sampling Techniques.

Publication in a peer reviewed Journal such as the Lancet virtually assures that this is NOT a political  timing  event.   Peer review requires too much dependence on the reviewers efforts to make deadlines for political purposes among other reasons.

 The questioning of the report is media driven.

Comment #4David Janes

2006-10-14 00:21:14

Cluster sampling is scary, right?

In all seriousness, see this followup post. I don't know much about polling (besides adding 5 points to the right for Zogby) but I know enough about science to know about observer bias; and I know enough about extreme politicians ... on both ends of the spectrum ... to know that even a vague concept of the truth will always be subserviant to politics.

I'm glad you're confident that the Lancet has released two reports on Iraqi war deaths a month before US elections is a "political timing event". I guess it's just one of those things.

BTW: for your own edification, you may want to examine refugee flows from/to Iraq vs. other countries, especially since you think it's probable/certain that there are many days were 1000+ plus people are being murdered by weapons. Where's all the people bugging out?

NOTE: if you came to this via comment e-mail, go here.

Add Comment