The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: DixieBelle on January 08, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
-
Here is what the National Journal has found:
..... Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.
..... (concerning Item 1) The Lancet study was based on techniques developed by public health experts to determine rates of illness and death from epidemics and famines in large populations. This "cluster" sampling is a relatively new methodology that attempts to replicate the logic of public opinion polling in Third World locales that lack a telecommunications infrastructure.
Following this method, questioners undertake a house-to-house survey in certain areas and then extrapolate the results from that statistical sample to the entire national population. According to this study's design, teams of Iraqi questioners would visit approximately 47 randomly chosen clusters of homes.
..... (concerning Item 2) "The authors refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data," said David Kane, a statistician and a fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Statistics at Harvard University. Some critics have wondered whether the Iraqi researchers engaged in a practice known as "curb-stoning," sitting on a curb and filling out the forms to reach a desired result. Another possibility is that the teams went primarily into neighborhoods controlled by anti-American militias and were steered to homes that would provide information about the "crimes" committed by the Americans.
..... (concerning Item 3) Virtually everyone connected with the study has been an outspoken opponent of U.S. actions in Iraq. (So are several of the study's biggest critics, such as Iraq Body Count.) Whether this affected the authors' scientific judgments and led them to turn a blind eye to flaws is up for debate.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/01/04/will-old-media-learn-lesson-lancet-doubtful
crickets......
-
I'm eagerly waiting for the torrent of breathless articles trumpeting this fraud in the MSM.....waiting....waiting....waiting....
-
If I learned nothing else in three terms of statistics, it's that the easiest thing in the world is to make the conclusions fit preconceived notions - you know, like what your major funder wants to find.
I'm not sayin' you understand, I'm just sayin'.
-
It does not surprise me in the least,.That study was the biggest load of hogs balls since Val Kilmer's dinner. The morgues would have been full to overflowing.
And they're the ones crying "Bush lied"...when they perpetrate the biggest lie of them all.
Hypocrites all.
-
Are we still discussing that thing? That was the worst designed study I have ever heard of, and I don't believe anyone ever bothers to bring it up anymore, it has been so thouroly trashed
-
^believe it or not, several libtardss are still clinging to it like it's the gospel truth.
-
George Soros, who was convicted of insider trading? That George Soros?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/14/business/soros.php