First of all, compare apples to apples. The U.N. 18,000 lower figure for 13 months factors out to 55,384 over 40 months. This is still seven times less than the 392,979 lowest range figure for the latest study over that period.
I'm assuming "war-related" has an exact meaning. If it was just death by violence, they'd say so.
The U.N. group interviewed many more households, and came up with answers nowhere close to the Johns/Hopkins studies, using almost identical methods.
Add to this the blatant politics of the Lancet editor, and the timed release of both studies in the month before an election (the first study was actually released early for this by their own announcement.)
If this study had come to a conclusion favorable to the war effort, every liberal here would have pointed it out as being the product of political hacks, using all the same evidence I am.
Current Events » in reply to Well...
re: Well...
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Johns Hopkins/Lancet pull another number out of their asses.
- Another study for comparison
- Considering no nukes, WMDs, no al-Qaeda no link to WTC - how many is too many? (n/t)
- Link to actual study
- That's nothing. Remember the ONE MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN who supposedly died due to the sanctions?
- Does it make you feel better, Tom...
- What should be disturbing....
- Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters.
- Got any idea why Bush & Co. don't keep track of Iraqi deaths?