Criticism of Lancet Study
Iraq Body Count points out some of the sillier implications of the Lancet study. Via Instapundit, who notes:
IRAQ BODY COUNT, often criticized for offering inflated civilian death figures, is now criticizing the Lancet study for offering inflated civilian death figures.
Heh. Indeed.
Who criticises iraq body count? They source things twice.
actus (10527e) — 10/16/2006 @ 9:52 pmTwice? More like a dozen.
(When you say source, you mean count, right?)
Dave (9090dd) — 10/16/2006 @ 11:18 pmI mean as in they look for at least two reports of a given casualty.
Which is a completely different project than what Lancet is doing. Lancet is trying to estimate a mortality rate. Is there a known mortality rate for Iraq?
actus (10527e) — 10/17/2006 @ 4:45 amI haven’t seen the recent Lancet article, but I have heard repeatedly that it was produced by the same folks who published a similar report a few years ago, (also only a number of weeks before a US election- for any readers unaware, The Lancet is British).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/18/2006 @ 3:03 pmThat study I read closely, as did other people who criticized it. According to its calculations, the infant mortality rate in Iraq, prior to the US invasion, was only 1/3 of that in the US. So which was it- that children were dying because of the sanctions against Iraq, or did Iraq have the healthiest children in the world?