by Tina Grazier
This is an excellent post found at the blog “Flares Into Darkness“:
Flawed methodology, flawed results. Worst of the Lancet.
“I feel quite confident that anyone questioning the number of violent deaths reported in the recent Lancet article Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey will be said by some (those for whom a bigger number is better, perhaps?) to be merely partisan. Pointing out to these people that Les Roberts, who “instigated the study and assisted with the analysis and interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript” is blatantly partisan himself, publicly says that he is against the war, and campaigned as a Democrat for a seat in the House of Representatives before pulling out in May of this year, is unlikely to get past that.”
…or, if that ones too long and complicated just think logically as DontFeedTheTrolls, a poster on Newsbusters did:
“The numbers in that study are 100% FALSE. Do the math. 3 (oh, what the heck, lets be generous) 4 years equals (4×365=1460). 650,000 divided by 1460 equals 445. That would be a rough figure of 445 deaths per day, average. That would mean some days with the death toll above 500! When have you ever seen a death toll (the press loves those) anywhere near that number per day? You haven’t and you won’t. This is just another lie foisted upon those who don’t dig a little deeper.”