Lancet death toll bogus?

Sand

Can you tell us more about this? Is the Lancet not a pretty respected medical journal?

One of the main guys behind the study ran for election recently in the US on an anti war platform. He also admitted that the first study was rushed out to try and impact the US presidential elections in that year.

The editor of Lancet has an agenda that tends to encourage him to address anti-war rallies doing a good impression of someone that wouldnt be happy with a study on Iraq if it didnt support his own views.

FYI

Sand wrote:

I took the above from the wiki article. If you download and read the study youll notice the rate is 5.5

Heres the text of a WHO submission made in 2001 regarding the situation in Iraq. One stat leap out at me. First, prior to the first Gulf war, when Iraqs health system was at its height the crude mortality rate was 8 deaths per 1000. Now, given the sort of woe that was unleashed on Iraq during the next 13 years is it all that likely that the crude death rate *fell* to 5.5? The WHO article doesnt note the rise in the adult death rate but the child mortality rate rose significantly by their estimates and disease, malnutrition, lack of clean water and poor medical supplies were all rife. Bu Lancet, defying all reason chose a rate that was less than WHOs crude death rate for Iraq back in the golden age of Iraqi health.

The Lancet authors have responded to this question and all Sand's other questions before, many times, all you have to do is have a look:

9. Lancet 2 found a pre-invasion death rate of 5.5/ per 1000 people per year. The UN has as estimate of 10? Isn't that evidence of inaccuracy in the study?

LR: The last census in Iraq was a decade ago and I suspect the UN number is somewhat outdated. The death rate in Jordan and Syria is about 5. Thus, I suspect that our number is valid. Note that if we are somehow under-detecting deaths, then our death toll would have to be too low, not too high. Both because a) we must be missing a lot, and b) the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent deaths is so high.

I find it very reassuring that both studies found similar pre-invasion rates, suggesting that the extra two-years of recall did not dramatically result in under-reporting..a problem recorded in Ziare and Liberia in the past.

10. The pre-invasion death rate you found for Iraq was lower than for many rich countries. Is it credible that a poor country like Iraq would have a lower death rate than a rich country like Australia?

LR: Yes. Jordan and Syria have death rates far below that of the UK because the population in the Middle-east is so young. Over half of the population in Iraq is under 18. Elderly populations in the West are a larger part of the population profile and they die at a much higher rate.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11309

"Iraq is a young country. Therefore, it has a low “crude” death rate. “Crude” in this case means “not adjusted for demographic structure and therefore not meaningfully comparable across countries”. Therefore, it is not surprising that pre-war Iraq had a crude death rate similar to that of Denmark, any more than it is surprising that any other two completely non-comparable statistics might happen to be the same number."

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/12/death-rates-and-death-certificates/

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

In all that rambling and attempts at diversion, was there a point?

Yes. You are still justifying your cynicism about the lancet survey by saying

The Lancet study produces a figure far in excess of any other study.

gbh

If the authors of the Lancet report could offer opinions or evidence how this number of people died during the conflict, then it would be helpful. To me it sounds like they plucked a figure out of the air and called it a statistic.

If Iraq was like Somalia, where conflict can disrupt food supply and food aid as well as their low infrastructure base, then i would believe that far more people died indirectly due to the conflict that directly due to it. But Iraq is fairly well developed with good hospitals and medical staff, ambulances, and civilian infrastucture and I can't see so many collatoral casualties as the report suggests.

I also would be interested in them revealing how the death toll was spread. Some provinces literally have not been touched by the invasion or aftermath. Others like Baghdad have suffered more. So it seems obvious to me that the death rate should be higher in Baghdad, in the 20's maybe, while it is in single figures in the quieter provinces. Is this mentioned in the report?

Sand

The Lancet authors have responded to this question and all Sand's other questions before, many times, all you have to do is have a look:

Yeah, yeah - actually its what we call dazzling them with bull****. Lets take a closer look.

9. Lancet 2 found a pre-invasion death rate of 5.5/ per 1000 people per year. The UN has as estimate of 10? Isn't that evidence of inaccuracy in the study?

LR: The last census in Iraq was a decade ago and I suspect the UN number is somewhat outdated. The death rate in Jordan and Syria is about 5. Thus, I suspect that our number is valid. Note that if we are somehow under-detecting deaths, then our death toll would have to be too low, not too high. Both because a) we must be missing a lot, and b) the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent deaths is so high.

I find it very reassuring that both studies found similar pre-invasion rates, suggesting that the extra two-years of recall did not dramatically result in under-reporting..a problem recorded in Ziare and Liberia in the past.

First Iraq is not Jordan or Syria so their rates dont have anything to do with Iraqs [and wasnt that their point about the Danish rate below? That you cant compare crude rates across countries?]. Iraq has had 13 years of punishing sanctions that had a devastating effect of life in Iraq. Syria and Jordan have not. Apples. Oranges.

Notice also that he supports his study by reference to his own study.

10. The pre-invasion death rate you found for Iraq was lower than for many rich countries. Is it credible that a poor country like Iraq would have a lower death rate than a rich country like Australia?

LR: Yes. Jordan and Syria have death rates far below that of the UK because the population in the Middle-east is so young. Over half of the population in Iraq is under 18. Elderly populations in the West are a larger part of the population profile and they die at a much higher rate.

This is just a bad attempt at misdirection. The Iraqi death rate of 5.5 Lancet used is less than the WHO reported Iraqi death rate back when Iraqs health care was at its height, and before 13 years of devastating sanctions. Denmark is irrelevant. The rate is crazy in Iraqi terms alone.

The base prior war rate they used was ludicrously low. They chose a ludicrous rate to get a headline grabbing figure to serve their own political goals. End of.

Yes. You are still justifying your cynicism about the lancet survey by saying

See above - my cynicism is based on the variables fed into the study, the resulting estimate contradicting their sample grossly, and of course the blatant political agenda of the study. That it generates a figure far in excess of any other study is because that is what it was designed to do.

FYI

and you still don't understand...

"Note that if we are somehow under-detecting deaths, then our death toll would have to be too low, not too high."

AbusesToilets

I think it's pretty clear what point Sand is making,so how you can keep on bleating that he has nothing is beyond me.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think it's pretty clear what point Sand is making,so how you can keep on bleating that he has nothing is beyond me.

Well that is a constructive contribution 'abusestoilets'.

We all know what point Sand is trying to make, it is spelled out above - several times:

"That it generates a figure far in excess of any other study is because that is what it was designed to do."

Sand is attempting to discredit the study, with very little. The 'bleating' as you put it, is due to the fact Sand's attempts to the discredit are flawed. Therefore Sand's criticisms are more likely politically motivated - ironic given that is what he accuses the authors of.

If you don't understand the implication of the sentence quoted in my previous post, then I suggest you look at the primary cause of the death as found by the study.

AbusesToilets

I fail to see why Sand's criticisms are any more "flawed" than the reasoning put forward in the report for the base pre-war mortality rate.As Sand has argued Lancet decided upon the figure for the mortality rate at 5.5 for their report,where other agencies had put it at a higher figure.Thus Sand's point that this low figure was chosen to give a final death toll that was disproportionately high has merit.

Memnoch

gbh wrote:

If the authors of the Lancet report could offer opinions or evidence how this number of people died during the conflict, then it would be helpful. To me it sounds like they plucked a figure out of the air and called it a statistic.

If Iraq was like Somalia, where conflict can disrupt food supply and food aid as well as their low infrastructure base, then i would believe that far more people died indirectly due to the conflict that directly due to it. But Iraq is fairly well developed with good hospitals and medical staff, ambulances, and civilian infrastucture and I can't see so many collatoral casualties as the report suggests.

I also would be interested in them revealing how the death toll was spread. Some provinces literally have not been touched by the invasion or aftermath. Others like Baghdad have suffered more. So it seems obvious to me that the death rate should be higher in Baghdad, in the 20's maybe, while it is in single figures in the quieter provinces. Is this mentioned in the report?

Get a copy of the report and read the full version.

All medical studies have methodology etc. as a mandatory part of the publication. Not that there is any need to, after all the British Government's OWN science advisor has already admitted that their methods were sound.

There will always be people who refuse to accept the truth, no matter how well proven it is.
Have yet to see a single statement that reasonably refutes the Lancet. Because we have established.

1) the methodology is sound and the accepted BEST PRACTISE.
2) No other study has been done to this level so other figures are irrelevent.
3) The same method has been used in the past.

Thus far no one has provided any arguement that is not a circular form of the above.

Eg - 'They are politically motivated because their figures are higher than others (irrelevant because other figures are not based on proven scientific method).'

or

'Their methodology is flawed' proven to be false.

So to claim that they are politically motivated in their findings without a single shred of evidence is a lie, by the, wait for it politically motivated

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I fail to see why Sand's criticisms are any more "flawed" than the reasoning put forward in the report for the base pre-war mortality rate.As Sand has argued Lancet decided upon the figure for the mortality rate at 5.5 for their report,where other agencies had put it at a higher figure.Thus Sand's point that this low figure was chosen to give a final death toll that was disproportionately high has merit.

I'll spell it out for you.

Their decision to choose the 5.5 rate was no doubt based on factually backed judgement. It is a crude rate and the accuracy of it has not been proved false. Reference to another rate, doesn't make this one false.

However, this is +completely irrelevant+:

If you look at the cause of deaths found by the study, you will see that the vast majority of deaths were caused by violence and therefore attribuate to the invasion and occupation. If you were then to use a higher baseline mortality rate, then the actual total deaths would be higher.

AbusesToilets

Their decision to choose the 5.5 rate was no doubt based on factually backed judgement. It is a crude rate and the accuracy of it has not been proved false. Reference to another rate, doesn't make this one false.

What "judgement" would that be? Their desire to have a higher final total number of deaths to maximise the the political impact of the report per chance?A different judgement from what other studies had placed the pre-war rate at.
The fact that you are quite happy to accept the veracity of this report,while elsewhere you have challenged others on their willingness to believe what is put forward in print media or from the Coalition governments in relation to the Middle East is interesting.

If you were then to use a higher baseline mortality rate, then the actual total deaths would be higher.

What I have an issue with is the information and variables used by that study. It is current death rate - prior death rate = excess death rate due to war. A prior death rate of 5.5 is ludicrously low.

Am i wrong in understanding in how the final figure is achieved?I'm not asking you about the causes of death,simply about the figure.

Sand

I think it's pretty clear what point Sand is making,so how you can keep on bleating that he has nothing is beyond me.

Essentially its because FYI has run out of links to copy and paste. So were into the denial stage where he goes "la, la, la I cant hear you". We hit this dead end last time we had this Lancet discussion.

If you look at the cause of deaths found by the study, you will see that the vast majority of deaths were caused by violence and therefore attribuate to the invasion and occupation. If you were then to use a higher baseline mortality rate, then the actual total deaths would be higher.

This is lovely - but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the prior death rate. Lancet is referring to the % of violence involved in the CURRENT estimated death rate. And given that Lancet themselves note they considered their safety of their teams to be the priority over information gathering, their information sample is not indisputable by a very long shot.

The issue is that the PRIOR death rate is ludicrously low, it is lower than WHOs recorded rate back in 1989, it is practically half the UN estimate. And Lancets defence is that they "suspect" its correct, that Syria and Jordan have rates around 5, so clearly the Iraqi rate *must* be 5.5 - They then go on with a master class in straight faced hypocrisy to claim crude death rates can't be compared across countries when it *doesnt* suit them. I hope Fianna Fail are taking notes.

There will always be people who refuse to accept the truth, no matter how well proven it is.

This is quite true. Id point out that the Lancet study is an *estimate*, not "the truth".

They are politically motivated because their figures are higher than others

Youre ignoring the points raised and simply building a strawman that better suits you. I consider the Lancet team to be political because they run for election on anti war platforms, address anti war rallies and rush out their reports to influence political elections. The fact that their figures are exceptionally high is a *result* of this, not a cause.

Theyre simply lucky that media institutions are also sympathetic to their views and havent given them the sort of grilling theyd give Bush if he came out with some survey that proved that actually that all deaths were either natural or tragic accidents.

'Their methodology is flawed' proven to be false.

The methodolgy is fine, the variables fed into the method were ludicrous. If youre unable to counter the points that are raised, then its a good sign you might want to revise your position.

Sand

Their decision to choose the 5.5 rate was no doubt based on factually backed judgement. It is a crude rate and the accuracy of it has not been proved false. Reference to another rate, doesn't make this one false.

By the way FYI - given the Lancet team considered the source of the 5.5 rate to be accurate, would you then accept they [the source] are a trustworthy and accurate source of crude mortality rates on Iraq?

gbh

Memnoch wrote:

Get a copy of the report and read the full version.

All medical studies have methodology etc. as a mandatory part of the publication. Not that there is any need to, after all the British Government's OWN science advisor has already admitted that their methods were sound.

There will always be people who refuse to accept the truth, no matter how well proven it is.
Have yet to see a single statement that reasonably refutes the Lancet. Because we have established.

1) the methodology is sound and the accepted BEST PRACTISE.
2) No other study has been done to this level so other figures are irrelevent.
3) The same method has been used in the past.

Thus far no one has provided any arguement that is not a circular form of the above.

Eg - 'They are politically motivated because their figures are higher than others (irrelevant because other figures are not based on proven scientific method).'

or

'Their methodology is flawed' proven to be false.

So to claim that they are politically motivated in their findings without a single shred of evidence is a lie, by the, wait for it politically motivated

Statistics can easily be fabricated. They are impartial, cold facts which really don't tell us anything. I don't really care what methodology they used, to me the final figure doesn't make sense. That doesn't make me stupid, just because I refuse to believe something at this point of time which seems not to reflect reality. I haven't read the report due to doing other things and I'm presuming its a fairly long report. However, you seem to be accepting as fact that 650000 people died whereas i am not, and i dont think the Lancet report authors could argue it as a fact either. Their figure just doesnt tally with other reports of the war in terms of numbers who have died in daily violence as well as the fact that perhaps 75% of Iraq including such places as the Kurdish north have been almost totally untouched by the conflict. I assume then that most casualties identified in the report, perhaps 500,000 happened in the hotbed of the war in or around Baghdad and the centre of the country.

But I will look around for the report and read it and see if my sceptism is answered.

FYI

Sand wrote:

Essentially its because FYI has run out of links to copy and paste. So were into the denial stage where he goes "la, la, la I cant hear you". We hit this dead end last time we had this Lancet discussion.

Well this is rich coming from someone that has failed to read the previous posts. Here again:

"I'll spell it out for you.

If you look at the cause of deaths found by the study, you will see that the vast majority of deaths were caused by violence and therefore attributed to the invasion and occupation. If you were then to use a higher baseline mortality rate, then the actual total deaths would be higher."

If you don't understand the logic behind this then I suggest you do a bit more digging, because the 'cursed' links I post contain what's called 'information'.

"Findings Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained
12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation
period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per
1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been
654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the
population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most
common cause being gunfire."

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Sand wrote:

By the way FYI - given the Lancet team considered the source of the 5.5 rate to be accurate, would you then accept they [the source] are a trustworthy and accurate source of crude mortality rates on Iraq?

Who, the CIA?



18 CIA 2003 Factbook entry for Iraq. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
lps35389/2003/iz.html (accessed Oct 2, 2006).
19 US Agency for International Health and US Census Bureau.
Global population profile: 2002.

Memnoch

gbh wrote:

Statistics can easily be fabricated. They are impartial, cold facts which really don't tell us anything.

Probably one of the most brilliant posts I've read in a while. Saying that statistics can easily be fabricated is a gross generalisation. That's like saying 'lies can be told,' therefore everything you don't automatically want to agree with is already a lie.

Why not stick to the facts in THIS case. The Lancet study shows clearly how they arrive at their conclusions by tried and tested methodology and PROVEN scientific method. If you contest THESE figures, it's up to you to show how they are wrong, if you can't do so then either accept them for what they are or stop trying to pretend that you are looking at these in any impartial way, or that it's not simply your pre-decided beliefs that are making the decisions for you.

The beauty of COLD hard FACTS is that is what they are exactly, FACTS, which by definition are indisputable.

I don't really care what methodology they used, to me the final figure doesn't make sense. That doesn't make me stupid, just because I refuse to believe something at this point of time which seems not to reflect reality.

You're kidding right? The basis of arriving at any set of information is to use correct methodology. If the methodology is correct then LOGICALLY it FOLLOWS that the conclusions are also correct.

You are CHOSING to dismiss the REALITY becuase you don't like it, because it doesn't agree with what you WANT reality to be. Reality tends to be pesky in that way, it's kinda independent of what individuals want. WHy does the figure not make sense to you? Only because you dont' want it to, but you have no evidence at all to counter the Lancet findings.

I haven't read the report due to doing other things and I'm presuming its a fairly long report. However, you seem to be accepting as fact that 650000 people died whereas i am not, and i dont think the Lancet report authors could argue it as a fact either.

If you haven't read the report then you shouldn't be arguing about it either way because you are arguing out of ignorance. This statement by you proves that you aren't the least bit interested in what the facts might be. You've already made up your mind BEFORE you even read the damned report.

Their figure just doesnt tally with other reports of the war in terms of numbers who have died in daily violence as well as the fact that perhaps 75% of Iraq including such places as the Kurdish north have been almost totally untouched by the conflict. I assume then that most casualties identified in the report, perhaps 500,000 happened in the hotbed of the war in or around Baghdad and the centre of the country.

NONE of the other reports use TRIED AND TESTED scientific methodology and are therefore inaccurate and inferior to the Lancet findings. (note how I showed exactly what the problem is with those reports - as in they aren't based on any method that has been shown in the past to be proven to work in conflict zones, whereas the Lancet method HAS been used and the findings arrived at accepted.)

But I will look around for the report and read it and see if my sceptism is answered.

I doubt it. You made up your mind long ago. You aren't interested in being educated on the issue, and this you have made clear through your posts.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

In all that rambling and attempts at diversion, was there a point? The study is discredited on its own merits or lack thereof. Its a political exercise, it was rigged to meet a political end, and it is so badly rigged that it blatantly contradicts its own sample where 92% of deaths they sampled were recorded, but 92% of deaths they estimated apparently arent.

I suppose the disconnect between the reported deaths of the Iraqi Health Ministry and the issued death certs aren't politically motivated at all....sorry I forgot that's the Lancets fault.

gbh

Think I should have used the word 'numbers' instead of 'facts' but fair play to ya for picking up on it. I wanted to draw some sort of comparison with pre-election polls. They can never tell you exactly how many people will vote a certain way on the day of election and people can be too influenced by these polls and take them to mean that because a party is ahead in a poll they must be a better party and more worthy of a vote. Some polls can be anything up to 10% out when compared with elections results.

Do they say where the clusters are in the report because if they wanted they could pick them all in or around Baghdad.

Akrasia

gbh wrote:

Think I should have used the word 'numbers' instead of 'facts' but fair play to ya for picking up on it. I wanted to draw some sort of comparison with pre-election polls. They can never tell you exactly how many people will vote a certain way on the day of election and people can be too influenced by these polls and take them to mean that because a party is ahead in a poll they must be a better party and more worthy of a vote. Some polls can be anything up to 10% out when compared with elections results.

Do they say where the clusters are in the report because if they wanted they could pick them all in or around Baghdad.

it's all in the methodology section of the report. They took clusters from all over Iraq. And by the way, Baghdad isn't the most dangerous place in Iraq, there are much worses places to be, like Fallujah for one example.

Sand

If you don't understand the logic behind this then I suggest you do a bit more digging, because the 'cursed' links I post contain what's called 'information'.

Yawn - Ive already dealt with this....

This is lovely - but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the prior death rate. Lancet is referring to the % of violence involved in the CURRENT estimated death rate. And given that Lancet themselves note they considered their safety of their teams to be the priority over information gathering, their information sample is not indisputable by a very long shot.

The issue is that the PRIOR death rate is ludicrously low, it is lower than WHOs recorded rate back in 1989, it is practically half the UN estimate. And Lancets defence is that they "suspect" its correct, that Syria and Jordan have rates around 5, so clearly the Iraqi rate *must* be 5.5 - They then go on with a master class in straight faced hypocrisy to claim crude death rates can't be compared across countries when it *doesnt* suit them. I hope Fianna Fail are taking notes.

Now either, you can explain why the pre-war mortality rate should be so stupidly low, contradicting both the UN and WHOs rate for Iraqi medical care at its height. Or you cant.

And I know you cant, which is why youre desperately trying to change the subject.

And again - I repeat my question. Seeing as you seem to trust the judgement of the Lancet team implicitly and without question, do you agree with their judgement that the source of their pre-war rate is a good source for accurate crude mortality rates on Iraq.

Its a very easy question, yes or no would suffice.

I suppose the disconnect between the reported deaths of the Iraqi Health Ministry and the issued death certs aren't politically motivated at all....sorry I forgot that's the Lancets fault.

Sovtek, the only disconnect is between the almost complete official record of deaths in Lancets survey [92% had death certificates], and Lancets estimate which implies that barely 10% of deaths had been officially recorded.

And that disconnect would result from Lancets political agenda contaminating their study.

FYI

Sand wrote:

Yawn - Ive already dealt with this....

No you haven't.

Sand wrote:

Now either, you can explain why the pre-war mortality rate should be so stupidly low

From Tim Lambert:

[So what's the first flaw that Kaplan claims to have found?

Based on the household surveys, the report estimates that, just before the war, Iraq's mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000. (That is, for every 1,000 people, 5.5 die each year.) The results also show that, in the three and a half years since the war began, this rate has shot up to 13.3 per 1,000. So, the "excess deaths" amount to 7.8 (13.3 minus 5.5) per 1,000. They extrapolate from this figure to reach their estimate of 655,000 deaths.

However, according to data from the United Nations, based on surveys taken at the time, Iraq's preinvasion mortality rate was 10 per 1,000. The difference between 13.3 and 10.0 is only 3.3, less than half of 7.8. ...

(If the Hopkins researchers want to claim that their estimate is more reliable than the United Nations', they will have to prove the point. It is also noteworthy that, if Iraq's preinvasion mortality rate really was 5.5 per 1,000, it was lower than that of almost every country in the Middle East, and many countries in Western Europe.)

Kaplan gives a broken link for the UN data, but you can see it for yourself if you go here and select Iraq from the list. The UN's table does indeed gives a mortality rate of 10 per 1,000 for Iraq for 1995-2000. We see straight away the mistake that Burnham et al made. They should have presented their estimate of Iraqi deaths in a big table and not provided any details of the source other than "surveys". Presumably, Kaplan would then have accepted the number uncritically.

What are the "surveys taken at the time" that Kaplan reckons contradict the Lancet study? The 2004 Lancet study provides the answer:

No surveys or census based estimates of crude mortality have been undertaken in Iraq in more than a decade, and the last estimate of under-five mortality was from a UNICEF sponsored demographic survey from 1999.

That's right, there weren't any. The UN number is just a guess. The Lancet number is more reliable than the UN number because it is based on a survey rather than being just a guess. Kaplan even admitted this in his critique of the first Lancet study.

According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up.

Did he forget writing this or something?]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/slates_war_on_epidemiology_con.php

Sand wrote:

And I know you cant, which is why youre desperately trying to change the subject.

The subject has not changed, you have simply failed to follow it.

Sand wrote:

And again - I repeat my question. Seeing as you seem to trust the judgement of the Lancet team implicitly and without question, do you agree with their judgement that the source of their pre-war rate is a good source for accurate crude mortality rates on Iraq.

Its a very easy question, yes or no would suffice.

It's pretty obvious the CIA rate has not increased dramatically over the years since the invasion, the reasons for this are obvious.

Sand wrote:

Sovtek, the only disconnect is between the almost complete official record of deaths in Lancets survey [92% had death certificates], and Lancets estimate which implies that barely 10% of deaths had been officially recorded.

Given death certs are can be issued by local doctors, there's no reason to think all, or even a majority, of death certs would make their way back to a central office. There is also, no doubt, a lack of political will to bother doing this.

AbusesToilets

That's right, there weren't any. The UN number is just a guess. The Lancet number is more reliable than the UN number because it is based on a survey rather than being just a guess. Kaplan even admitted this in his critique of the first Lancet study.

According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up.

Did he forget writing this or something?]

So what you're still claiming is during the period of greatest hardship and suffering for the Iraqi people,combined with a massive breakdown in social services,that during this time the mortality rate actually fell?
Can you really not see the problem with that declaration,and how,given the Lancet organisation and leaderships declared political stance,people take issue with the reports findings.After 13 years of sanctions and violence the crude mortality rate was supposedly lower than that of some Western countries.
Really :rolleyes:

Sand

No you haven't.

Yes I have. Ill admit I underestimated you, its seems you dont easily run out of links to copy and paste instead of having a view of your own. Kudos.

From Tim Lambert:

[So what's the first flaw that Kaplan claims to have found?

BTW - Im not this Kaplan chap whoever the hell he is, so Ive little interest in his points and Ill leave it to him to defend his own points.

That's right, there weren't any. The UN number is just a guess. The Lancet number is more reliable than the UN number because it is based on a survey rather than being just a guess. Kaplan even admitted this in his critique of the first Lancet study.

That said, I will use this claim which appears to be the argument of somebody called Tim Lambert, rather than somebody called FYI. Ill come to it later though.

It's pretty obvious the CIA rate has not increased dramatically over the years since the invasion, the reasons for this are obvious.

Yes, heres the reason youre choking and spluttering over endorsing the Lancet source for their 5.5 prior death rate. Because according to the same source, it was only 5.67 for 2006. Christ, itd be hard to argue theres a war going on at all accepting that rate.

Now your left with a predicament - The CIA factbook is bad, faulty source for crude mortality rates in Iraq. Why did Lancet use it then? Because they wanted the lowest rate they could get even if it blindingly contradicted Iraqi mortality rates and history. They wanted it so they could get a headline grabbing number to suit their political electioneering.

But you dont want to say the Lancet study is based of faulty information, because you share Lancest political views on Iraq and like having a nice big number to wave about.

So will you say that Lancet based its study of accurate and trustworthy sources of crude mortality rates for Iraq? No, because then youd have no credible reason to not accept the same sources rate of 5.67 in 2006 as being equally accurate. And a death rate of 5.67 wouldnt give you that nice headline grabbing number to wave about.

Now, youve hinted at the CIA factbook being adjusted down in 2006 to suit the Bush agenda - who knows, its certainly a completely ridiculous number that doesnt bear any relation to reality. But the CIA Factbook would have equally good reason to underplay the impact of 13 years of sanctions on Iraqi mortality rates prior to the war as well. Certainly not good PR for the Clinton administration to announce that the death of 550,000 kids is something theyre comftable with, so surely the CIA factbook would underplay those deaths to begin with?

You cannot criticise the current rate of 5.67 without also criticising the rate of 5.5 which Lancet used. And you can hardly criticise the method the CIA factbook used when the source you use to attack Kaplans argument stresses that the CIA factbook death rates are based on surveys. So, if Lancet supports the results of the CIA factbook, they surely they must do so on the basis of supporting the method as valid? Or maybe they didnt care, so long as it was low enough. The prior death rate is entirely breezed over without comment or argument for why its viewed as trustworthy.

The study is a rigged political exercise.

But do not worry FYI. As I've already stated, most media tend to share Lancets views and accept uncritically the number of 655,000 which has become fact simply through repetition. Lancet might as well go all out and announce the death toll is 65 million next time around so they can claim its worse than WW1. None of the super sleuth investigative journalists out there will do more than copy and paste the number into their headlines.

FYI

Lets get the uncomplicated stuff out of the way first:

Sand wrote:

But do not worry FYI. As I've already stated, most media tend to share Lancets views and accept uncritically the number of 655,000 which has become fact simply through repetition. Lancet might as well go all out and announce the death toll is 65 million next time around so they can claim its worse than WW1. None of the super sleuth investigative journalists out there will do more than copy and paste the number into their headlines.

This is completely untrue, almost the opposite to what has actually occurred. The mainstream media has in many cases attempted to ignore both the 1st and 2nd Lancet studies. RTE has only mentioned it a handful of times. The BBC loathes to use the figures, instead preferring those provided for reported deaths from IBC. The Irish Times sometimes refers to the Lancet. Generally though the Lancet figures are referred to as outlandish. FACT.

Sand wrote:

Yes I have. Ill admit I underestimated you, its seems you dont easily run out of links to copy and paste instead of having a view of your own. Kudos.

Ironic given you only have one point, that you can't understand how the Lancet can choose the crude rate used by the Lancet, which closely +correlates+ with the CIA's figures. It isn't the CIA figure though, you do realise that?

Sand wrote:

The CIA factbook is bad, faulty source for crude mortality rates in Iraq. Why did Lancet use it then?

This I think is something you have got hung up on, without realising the rate was found by survey methods. The correlation with the CIA and US Health Agency figures is just a confirmation of that figure. They didn't use it as a source!

Therefore there is no precedent here. The CIA figure correlated. It no longer does. Doesn't matter.

Everything else you have failed to understand or ignored.

From the study:

"Our estimate of the pre-invasion crude or all-cause
mortality rate is in close agreement with other sources.18,19

18 CIA 2003 Factbook entry for Iraq. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
lps35389/2003/iz.html (accessed Oct 2, 2006).
19 US Agency for International Health and US Census Bureau.
Global population profile: 2002. Washington, DC:
US Census Bureau, 2004."

So now the entirity of your argument hangs on the following:

Sand wrote:

Christ, itd be hard to argue theres a war going on at all accepting that rate.

Talk about pulling things out of thin air. That's the good thing about links, they can provide facts and information to support your assertions and conjectures.

And you can listen to Les Roberts, one of the lead authors, explain further the methodology here (about 19 mins in) [note: this is Lancet 1]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5vD_Ub2K_c&mode=related&search=

The crude mortality rate was found to be at 5 prior to the invasion, this rose to 12.3 after, almost two and a half times. And over half of these days were attributed to violence, with a slight increase in road accidents.

So back to the rates you'd prefer to use:

"No surveys or census based estimates of crude mortality have been undertaken in Iraq in more than a decade, and the last estimate of under-five mortality was from a UNICEF sponsored demographic survey from 1999.

That's right, there weren't any. The UN number is just a guess. The Lancet number is more reliable than the UN number because it is based on a survey rather than being just a guess. Kaplan even admitted this in his critique of the first Lancet study."

[FYI Fred Kaplan is a former journo for the Boston Globe and contributor to the Slate]

AbusesToilets

No surveys or census based estimates of crude mortality have been undertaken in Iraq in more than a decade, and the last estimate of under-five mortality was from a UNICEF sponsored demographic survey from 1999.

That's right, there weren't any. The UN number is just a guess. The Lancet number is more reliable than the UN number because it is based on a survey rather than being just a guess. Kaplan even admitted this in his critique of the first Lancet study."

Given the situation that the study into the mortality rates which took place before the first Gulf War found there to be a mortality rate of around 8-10,which, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, was when Iraq had a functioning health service,are you stilling saying you hold true to Lancets claims of a crude mortality rate of 5.5 some 13 or so years later?
I'm not attacking the scientific veracity of the survey method.It seems to be fairly accepted way to conduct such research.However,the survey's methodology is not the issue.
The issue is the decision by the Lancet group to base their comparasion figures from this figure of 5.5,which they have,it seems,arbitrarily decided upon.A figure which flies in the face of the estimates of other agencies and also common sense.
Before Gulf War there existed a rate of somewhere around 8 per 1000,and after 13 years of violence and sanctions it drops to 5.5? Perhaps some western countries should consider enacting similar violence and hardship in their countries,seeing as how it has had such a positive impact in Iraq :rolleyes:

watty

It is terrible that no-one is keeping proper records or running the place properly such that there is so much doubt as to if deaths are closer to 40,000 or 700,000.

it's like the Middle Ages or worse.