[FoRK] The Lancet publishes Johns Hopkins' research on Iraq - 100, 000 excess deaths, or more

Ian Andrew Bell (FoRK) fork at ianbell.com
Mon Nov 1 09:27:27 PST 2004


Right, but if they're accurate at all it's due to dumb luck.  That 
said, it's about as statistically valid as most of the political polls 
done in the US.  The problem is must of those polls tend to be 
predictive in influencing thought as much as they measure it, while I"m 
hoping that a death toll estimate is less so.

-Ian.


On 1-Nov-04, at 9:05 AM, Damien Morton wrote:

> Actually, the estimate isnt that bad, considering that the estimates 
> based on journalistic sources alone are in the 10-50K range.
>
>> I've got a better word for it:  propaganda.
>>
>> -Ian.
>>
>>
>> On 1-Nov-04, at 6:09 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
>>
>>> Given that confidence level, they should be embarassed as scientists
>>> to be going around saying that 'conservative assumptions' place them
>>> at 100K. And the Lancet should be embarassed to publish it.



More information about the FoRK mailing list