[FoRK] The Lancet publishes Johns Hopkins' research on Iraq - 100,
000 excess deaths, or more
luis.villa at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 17:04:39 PST 2004
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:05:50 -0500, Damien Morton
<dmorton at bitfurnace.com> wrote:
> Actually, the estimate isnt that bad, considering that the estimates
> based on journalistic sources alone are in the 10-50K range.
It's informative, interesting, and probably not innacurate. And as an
interesting research /technique/, quite possibly it is even
But to call the results 'research' is crap- if a quack with a cure for
cancer came to the Lancet with 'research' of similar 'certainty', and
it got published, people would be fired and careers would end. The
Lancet should be embarassed to have passed it off as such.
> > 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.
> >> It looks like an interesting methodology, and some interesting (and
> >> not terribly invalid) assumptions made. But if that's the best results
> >> you can come up with... shameful.
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
More information about the FoRK