3 replies to this topic

[stocks]

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt. Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet. But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October. It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.

Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate. He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.

But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson [A zoologist], on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."



None of the comments I saw appeared to be by people who are experienced users of cluster sampling -- the method used for the Lancet study. I am a VERY experienced user of cluster sampling -- with many of my academic publications based on it. And the glaring error which rather explains why the study appeared in a medical journal rather than a more statistically sophisticated journal is that there was NO VALIDATION of the survey results. That your survey-takers might just sit down under a tree and "make up" their "interview" results is a routine peril and it is routine to take precautions against it -- usually by going back on a later occasion and checking with the alleged respondents a proportion of all interviews handed in. Just the awareness that a sample of the respondents will be re-interviewed tends to keep the interviewers honest -- though not always so, regrettably. So the results reported in the Lancet study have no credibility at all and must be regarded as garbage.

http://dissectleft.b...ppens-when.html

[colion]

No need to argue about methodology, etc. Just look at the figures. Does anyone believe that on average 400+ Iraqis are killed every day? That's what is needed to reach 655,000. If that many are being killed, why are the media reports falling short?

[stocks]

January 04, 2008

BIG -- AND DEVASTATING -- NEWS ON THAT LANCET STUDY claiming massive civilian deaths in Iraq. A National Journal cover story by Neil Munro suggests the possibility of outright scientific fraud. Munro notes serious problems with the study, and a failure on the part of The Lancet's staff to determine if the data on which it was based -- data which the authors will not share -- were even true. In addition, there are problems with conflicts of interest and political bias. This is a big deal story; it'll be interesting to see if it gets the attention it deserves.

http://instapundit.c...ves2/013683.php

[Rogerdodger]

More incompetence from The Lancet?

I wish it was just simple incompetence.
But we seem to be watching the Universities, as well as Journalism and Science abandoning their claimed pursuit of truth and replacing it with political agendas, or at least profiteering.
They are making the "greedy, dishonest corporations" look pure.

George Soros funded the Lancet study and it was conducted by an anti war professor.
LINK

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset."
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

So is that off by 400%?
Kinda like the "1,000's" who died in New Orleans?

"suggests the possibility of outright scientific fraud"
And people wonder why I'm so cynical.