Tim Blair

Testing...

"the study is well on its way to becoming an article of faith at the Sydney Morning Herald ..." Oh, well, now I'm reassured...

The study is debunked by its own published margin of error (8 - 194,000?!). Nothing more need be said.

John Pilger is writing for the Lancet? Who knew?

Seeing the apparent utter contempt the Lancet editorial board has both for good science and for its readers makes me ill.

It's almost enough to make me want to go straight back to bed and give up today as a wash.

The Lancet already screwed the pooch with the MMR vaccine stdy which was just more pandering populism when it was a big issue in the UK. I wonder what they're after? "Hello's" circulation?
Even the most liberal anti-war groups' estimates were in the range of 14-16 000!

John Hopkins shot themselves in the foot by admitting to their lack of objectivity and bias, something they are well qualified for.

Meanwhile, the study is well on its way to becoming an article of faith at the Sydney Morning Herald ...

But first the Herald has to stop saying that the survey is 'controversial' and that it puts the number of deaths much higher than any other source. Someone first has to take this study's finding for granted.

Reporting the publishing of a controversial survey is not the same as openly supporting its contents.

Love's dissection of the survey is an entertaining read. My favourite line is, "It's almost as if military violence is not randomly distributed across the population of Iraq but is instead intelligently directed at specific areas".

When I first saw this last week alarm bells went off when I read that it had been "fast-tracked for publication".

Now why would that be, I wonder...

And what if it's true? Why don't you put your meagre collective brainstrust together to grapple with that question. What if it's true? Do you even give a shit?

Tell me how it has still been worth it, how you'd do it all over again, even if it's true. I know you want to...

Happy to be very dubious about the 100,000 figure.

What figure is it?

90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000

anyone know?

What figure is it?

However many it takes for you to score cheap political points, obviously.

innocent people's deaths = political points?

no, i'd be curious to know what the figure of innocent people killed collaterally in the present incursion is. as i said, i'm more than happy to accept that 100,000 is too cute, and too close to an election. but if the margin of errors is 12,000 at max, that's 88,000 people.

that may represent "points" to you amigo, but those people have family, and tribe, who will want revenge.

but if the margin of errors is 12,000 at max, that's 88,000 people.

Only that it's not. Nice try Chico. The 95% confidence interval for that "study" the Lancet published was 8,000 to 194,000, i.e. their margin of error was almost +/- 100,000. As somebody else said, that's not a study, that's a dartboard. As for some real numbers, I'm sure you'll find http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ a worthwhile visit. I can't say I agree entirely with their methodology, but at least they are consistent and are making a good-faith effort.

You will, perhaps, note that the numbers that the Lancet "study" quotes as their confidence interval even undercuts the IBC numbers by 6000. Haven't seen too many headlines stating, "New Study Reveals That Iraq War May Have Had Up To 6000 Casualties Less Than Assumed" - I wonder why.

those people have family, and tribe, who will want revenge.

What a stunningly ignorant and, dare I say it, simplistic statement. Not to mention the implied casual racism that Iraqis can't be expected to do anything but give in to their blood rage. Do you lefties ever listen to what you're saying?