One of the problems I have here is that deduction and inference seem to be lost arts.
90 percent of the interviewees produced death certificates. Deaths recorded and logged by authorities. We aren't talking about tribesmen out in the boonies who bury their dead alone.
The number of deaths reported by those same authorities, and accepted by the U.N., is a tenth of this new number.
Can you get those two facts to match up? I can't.
It is physically impossible to attribute 5,000 deaths a month to coalition action. That's six Fallujahs a month. Why isn't common sense coming into this anywhere?
And that quote? They're almost proud of the fact that results from their methodology don't match anyone else's. Of course the others are all wrong.
Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in a speech.
Current Events » in reply to Thanks
Inconsistency
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?