According to a report aired on NPR this morning, most of the reported deaths were confirmed with death certificates. So the people surveyed are not making this up.
The study surveyed cluster samples and analyzed death rates, using documentation and interviews, for both before the invasion and after it.
The cluster survey method itself is widely used and is considered scientifically valid, so the claim in your headline about where the number came from is inaccurate. The individual in the article you cite who says the numbers are "way too high" works for the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Anthony Cordesman, in his bio at the CSIS site, has his expertise in strategy, not in medicine or statistics. I'm sure there's a strategic reason for him to say that the numbers are way too high. Perhaps the CSIS would like to conduct a similar study, with similar peer review as the study published in Lancet to determine whether the methodology is solid, in order to support Mr. Cordesman's assertion.
The survey results release was certainly timed for political reasons, so there you have a legitimate gripe. You needn't worry too much about it, though: the people who don't care about the Iraqis' suffering will continue not to care.
Current Events » in reply to Johns Hopkins/Lancet pull another number out of their asses.
Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters.
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?