You know those National Review stories from Lebanon?
They were all made up.

Link (new window)

stevecody: You know those National Review stories from Lebanon?
They were all made up.

And what does that have to do with the Lancet article?

/not submitter, just curious about the connection

How dare someone try counting our bodies.

And yet, we'll see people in here still quoting their falsified numbers as if they were gospel.

Which is a rather accurate summation, come to think. There is, on the left, a radical zealotry approaching and in many ways exceeding that of the far right.

Boojum2k: And yet, we'll see people in here still quoting their falsified numbers as if they were gospel.

Which is a rather accurate summation, come to think. There is, on the left, a radical zealotry approaching and in many ways exceeding that of the far right.

It just irks you that facts have a well-known liberal bias, doesn't it.

Report of 650,000 dead Iraqis relied on large sample base, checked death certificates, includes more reliable methodology than previous reports (new window).


crypticsatellite: And what does that have to do with the Lancet article?

/not submitter, just curious about the connection

NRO is an unreliable source with a history of misleading their readers. The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

cameroncrazy1984: It just irks you that facts have a well-known liberal bias, doesn't it.

Hmm. . . nope, it doesn't irk me, and no, actually they don't. Facts have no bias, and you ignore them as much as any far right wingnut in favor of your own bias.

POAC: NRO is an unreliable source with a history of misleading their readers. The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

you mean NRO, or the actual National Journal article that did the study?

are you going to discredit the National Journal, too, as a way to avoid discussion of the disputed facts?

Boojum2k: Facts have no bias, and you ignore them as much as any far right wingnut in favor of your own bias.

Who's ignoring the facts? From the article linked above: The same team from Johns Hopkins University worked with Iraqi doctors to visit over 1,800 homes throughout the country. These homes were selected randomly to make sure that no bias could creep in to their calculations. Such a random selection method is absolutely essential if the figures are to be believed.

They asked permission from every family to use the data they wanted. And they chased down death certificates in over four out of five cases to make sure that they had a double check on the numbers and causes of death given to them by family members.

Still think the study is not credible?

Why was he collecting data about chefs?

cameroncrazy1984: Still think the study is not credible?

Yes, because of the parts of the article that your eyes glaze over when reading, explaining the flaws of the study. But I know, they are doubleplus ungood, you must not allow yourself to see them or bad things will happen.

Let's keep fudging, smudging, crunching and scrunching numbers until we've distilled them into two camps: Everybody's dead versus Nobody's dead.

You might be a redneck if you believe the 40 year old National Journal over the 200 year old Lancet.

Oh Albo, did I offend your delicate sensibilities? Please accept my apologies. I'm obviously not trying to avoid discussion of the disputed facts, considering that the first part of my post directly addressed the disputed facts. You may want to go ahead and scroll up a little and take a look at that part of my post which you seem to have missed in your frenzied effort to misrepresent my intentions.

Balrog: You might be a redneck if you believe the 40 year old National Journal over the 200 year old Lancet.

You might be an idiot if you think "age of institution automatically gives more credibility."

In fact, you almost certainly are.

Right. Past history is no indicator of future results. We should just randomly act on things. Thinking is for wimps.

Balrog: You might be a redneck if you believe the 40 year old National Journal over the 200 year old Lancet.

So by your logic you'd better go read the 2000-year-old Bible and tell the Lancet to get stuffed.

Boojum2k: You might be an idiot if you think "age of institution automatically gives more credibility."

it's "appeal to authority," a logical fallacy, kind of what POAC did in reverse, by painting NRO as misleading (even if they just provided the link to the study and a pull quote) as a way to discredit the report

Gulper Eel: Balrog: You might be a redneck if you believe the 40 year old National Journal over the 200 year old Lancet.

So by your logic you'd better go read the 2000-year-old Bible and tell the Lancet to get stuffed.

The Bible's a professional journal?

That's great, but who are the Chefs?

Balrog: Right. Past history is no indicator of future results. We should just randomly act on things. Thinking is for wimps.

Thinking is not your strength, thats for sure.

My original statement has certainly seen plenty of corroborating evidence in this thread so far.

We're not in the business of counting civilian deaths.

POAC: The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

Yeah, it's only got a 40-year track record of non-partisan writing targeted at Washington uber-insiders. A subscription is $1700 a year, which you can't afford because you've got to get that jerking knee of yours treated.

albo: kind of what POAC did in reverse, by painting NRO as misleading (even if they just provided the link to the study and a pull quote) as a way to discredit the report

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying? Do you need an enemy that bad? Or are you deflecting any actual attempt that might be made in this thread to re-examine the actual Lancet report for fear that it might actually prove to be more statistically accurate than you, the NRO, and the author from the National Journal want to admit?

I pointed out that the NRO has a history of misleading its readers. Any thinking person would then come to the conclusion that the NRO synopsis should be read with a certain degree of skepticism and should then read the actual National Journal article.

Now about that National Journal article: From what I read, the article doesn't present any proof of inaccuracy on the part of the Lancet, but rather points out possible flaws pointed out by critics of the report and makes loosely based accusations of suspicions of fraud due to the suspected political preferences held by the authors. In otherwords... bullshiat.

Until the National Journal or NRO or Albo comes up with empirical research proving the Lancet report fraudulent instead of just repeating skeptics doubts, I'm going to continue trusting a report that relied on large sample base, checked death certificates, and includes more reliable methodology than previous reports. Call me crazy, but that's how I roll.

Boojum2k: Yes, because of the parts of the article that your eyes glaze over when reading, explaining the flaws of the study. But I know, they are doubleplus ungood, you must not allow yourself to see them or bad things will happen.

Would you agree that even with it supposed flaws, it is still the most accurate estimate that exists? If not, what is a more accurate estimate?

Gulper Eel: POAC: The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

Yeah, it's only got a 40-year track record of non-partisan writing targeted at Washington uber-insiders. A subscription is $1700 a year, which you can't afford because you've got to get that jerking knee of yours treated.

I was referring to the original linked article. The NRO which costs $29.50 a year,which you can't afford because you've got to get that jerking knee of yours treated. Rocket scientist.

Boojum2k: Balrog: Right. Past history is no indicator of future results. We should just randomly act on things. Thinking is for wimps.

Thinking is not your strength, thats for sure.

My original statement has certainly seen plenty of corroborating evidence in this thread so far.

Your original statement, summarized: "People will continue to believe a distinguished scientific journal instead of a political journal regarding a scientific issue."

Wow. That's deep man.

The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

The article is from the National Journal, hardly a bastion of right-wingnuttery. (new window)

Not Available: The linked article should be read with some skepticism.

The article is from the National Journal, hardly a bastion of right-wingnuttery. (new window)

I pointed out that the NRO has a history of misleading its readers. Any thinking person would then come to the conclusion that the NRO synopsis should be read with a certain degree of skepticism and should then read the actual National Journal article.

Don't forget about Reuters:

POAC: Until the National Journal or NRO or Albo comes up with empirical research proving the Lancet report fraudulent instead of just repeating skeptics doubts...

as the article notes, it's hard to get empirical research to disprove the study because it was done so shoddily and there is a dearth of key information.

in science, other scientists should be able to replicate an experiment himself and see if it works. clearly the lancet study is poor science under that standard.

if you want to to accept poor and biased science until better science turns up, that's fine. but i'll wait until one with more stringent standards and a better foundation comes along.

SherKhan: Let's keep fudging, smudging, crunching and scrunching numbers until we've distilled them into two camps: Everybody's dead versus Nobody's dead.

I think births should equal -1 death.

Balrog: Your original statement, summarized completely misstated by a moron

Corrected that for you.

Again, though, we see the left responding to criticizm with the same irrational reactionary behavior you'd expect from a young-earth creationist faced with a mountain of evolutionary evidence.

It's a religion to you guys, and the funniest part is, you don't even know it. Anyone not for you must be biased, but any insitution that has let bias in favor of you creep in over years must still be "neutral." It's funny that a leftroid can argue with a straight face that degreed scientists who work for oil companies are obviously bias, but a degreed scientist who works for a leftwing political group must be pure as the driven snow.

And then you claim some kind of intellectual superiority because you believe in these scientists. Not from any kind of critical analysis, though, you believe like Medieval peasants getting the Word from a priest.

I still recall what these folks had to say about the report:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/
"a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data"

dogdaze: Don't forget about Reuters:

You are trying to discredit Reuters with a cartoon from Cox and Forum. Now that is farking brilliant.

POAC: I pointed out that the NRO has a history of misleading its readers.

And now the Lancet has a history of misleading its readers.

Boojum2k: Balrog: Your original statement, summarized completely misstated by a moron

Corrected that for you.

Again, though, we see the left responding to criticizm with the same irrational reactionary behavior you'd expect from a young-earth creationist faced with a mountain of evolutionary evidence.

It's a religion to you guys, and the funniest part is, you don't even know it. Anyone not for you must be biased, but any insitution that has let bias in favor of you creep in over years must still be "neutral." It's funny that a leftroid can argue with a straight face that degreed scientists who work for oil companies are obviously bias, but a degreed scientist who works for a leftwing political group must be pure as the driven snow.

And then you claim some kind of intellectual superiority because you believe in these scientists. Not from any kind of critical analysis, though, you believe like Medieval peasants getting the Word from a priest.

Damn man, you really turned into a partisan douchebag. Good job.

POAC:

I pointed out that the NRO has a history of misleading its readers.

Such as?

It won't be long before someone at NRO tries to link Soros as the reason Huckabee won over Romney.

albo:
in science, other scientists should be able to replicate an experiment himself and see if it works. clearly the lancet study is poor science under that standard.

In science, a conclusion is reached through proving a hypothesis with evidence. Not by proposing a hypothesis with no data to back it up. Clearly the criticism of the scientific Lancet report by a political journal is poor science under that standard.

if you want to to accept poor and biased science until better science turns up, that's fine. but i'll wait until one with more stringent standards and a better foundation comes along.

If you want to assume something is poor and biased because skeptics say it could be instead of providing actual evidence that it is, be my guest. As I said before, I'm going to continue trusting a report that relied on large sample base, checked death certificates, and includes more reliable methodology than previous reports. Again, call me crazy, but that's still how I roll.

So... Let me get this straight.

The left wants to make the body count bigger so that the war looks bad and they get more support for ending it?

Can anyone point to instances where the right attempted to make the body count smaller so that they get more support to keep the war going?

"in science, other scientists should be able to replicate an experiment himself and see if it works. clearly the lancet study is poor science under that standard."

The Lancet study is NOT AN EXPERIMENT. Clearly you don't understand the scientific method OR how it applies.

POAC: Not by proposing a hypothesis with no data to back it up.

Unless you're the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

Hang On Voltaire: POAC:

I pointed out that the NRO has a history of misleading its readers.

Such as?

In his November 2 National Review Online column, NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg falsely claimed Clinton said Republicans are "tougher on terrorism than Democrats".

albo: if you want to to accept poor and biased science until better science turns up, that's fine. but i'll wait until one with more stringent standards and a better foundation comes along.

I'll repeat myself:
Would you agree that even with it supposed flaws, it is still the most accurate estimate that exists? If not, what is a more accurate estimate?

It's the creationist argument. Poke holes but bring nothing new to the table.

Lotsa folks killed in Iraq, no doubt. Is the report credible? I'd say it's far more credible than the "evidence" that got us in this farking mess in the first place.

Magruda: Can anyone point to instances where the right attempted to make the body count smaller so that they get more support to keep the war going?

Does this thread count?

Magruda: So... Let me get this straight.

The left wants to make the body count bigger so that the war looks bad and they get more support for ending it?

I don't think anyone on the "left" feels the bodycount needs to be inflated. It's bad enough as it is. Half of the current total would be bad enough as it is.

Can anyone point to instances where the right attempted to make the body count smaller so that they get more support to keep the war going?

Turn on FOX.