I'll have to see how they determined them, in detail, but if they're fiction, they got past a peer-review board, which means they are a clever fiction indeed.
Don't fall in love with process. The results still have to make sense, otherwise some of the people on these boards who generate math calculations by the megabyte would be geniuses.
Go look at the video link I appended to this post.
At what point are you all going to realize that scientific journals are no more objective politically than anything else, and that "peer," by definition, means "people in our group?"
Their first study was before the 2004 election. Has ANYONE else corrected their own numbers to match that estimate two years ago, or shown how the Lancet number matched any real data? Why or why not?
Current Events » in reply to We'll see.
re: We'll see.
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?