Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
ps.com...
http://antiwar.com/

I don't know why the above isn't hot, but if you google it you'll get
there.


Google what ?

Still it`s less than 100.000 victims used by the so-called 'pacifists' in
their anti-war rhetoric.

100k is the number of excess deaths reported. Excess deaths is a
statistical concept and doesn't mean that many people were killed
outright. It means there were 100k more deaths over some period than
would otherwise have been expected. I think the figure is from The
Lancet.

That`s what was discussed on the site iraqbodycount.net . The Lancet is not
a trustworthy source of information.

The Guardian is even less trustworthy.

"Jerzy" writes:
That`s what was discussed on the site iraqbodycount.net . The Lancet is not
a trustworthy source of information.

The Lancet is a venerable and prestigious medical journal and if IBC
has a problem with it, they have an uphill battle making their case.

I just took a look at IBC and their methodology is completely
different than an excess death measurement. IBC counts specific
fatalities from specific causes and only after a mini-investigation of
each fatality. Excess deaths is a public health concept and is a
statistical measure. It means the total number of deaths over some
period from all causes, minus the number you'd expect over that period
under normal circumstances. For example, if there's a chemical spill
in some city and then the cancer rate there is a few percent higher
over the next decade, you can't point to anyone who you can prove got
killed by the spill (if some particular person dies of cancer, they
might have gotten it anyway without the spill), but the total number
of deaths is higher and you can compute the excess. That's legitimate
and it's what the Lancet did, as I understand it.

That`s what was discussed on the site iraqbodycount.net . The Lancet is
not
a trustworthy source of information.

The Lancet is a venerable and prestigious medical journal and if IBC
has a problem with it, they have an uphill battle making their case.

The Lancet can be a prestigious medical journal however it is not a
trustworthy source of information on the subject of the victims of war in
Iraq. There are many speculations on their side but there should be facts.

Jerzy,

http://antiwar.com/justin/

Just click on the above, if it's blue.

Mike

Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...
Jerzy,

http://antiwar.com/justin/

Just click on the above, if it's blue.


Mike, I clicked and read and there are no facts only pure speculations that
came from The Lancet.

Paul Rubin wrote (to Jerzy Ciruk):
"Jerzy" writes:
That`s what was discussed on the site iraqbodycount.net .
The Lancet is not a trustworthy source of information.

Does Jerzy Ciruk have any relevant medical or scientific
qualifications?

The Lancet is a venerable and prestigious medical journal and if IBC
has a problem with it, they have an uphill battle making their case.

'The Lancet' study was done under the leadership of American scientists
from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 'The Lancet'
study was the subject of international peer review before its
publication.

I just took a look at IBC and their methodology is completely
different than an excess death measurement. IBC counts specific
fatalities from specific causes and only after a mini-investigation
of each fatality.

Again, John Sloboda, a co-founder of the Iraq Body Count project,
has acknowledged in print that the figure(s) cited by the Iraq Body
Count does "not pretend to be a complete count" of deaths in Iraq.

Excess deaths is a public health concept and is a statistical measure.
It means the total number of deaths over some period from all causes,
minus the number you'd expect over that period under normal circumstances.
For example, if there's a chemical spill in some city and then the cancer
rate there is a few percent higher over the next decade, you can't point
to anyone who you can prove got killed by the spill (if some particular
person dies of cancer, they might have gotten it anyway without the spill),
but the total number of deaths is higher and you can compute the excess.
That's legitimate and it's what the Lancet did, as I understand it.

Much, if not all, of 'The Lancet' study was available for reading on
the internet. As far as I can tell, however, one needs to subcribe
to 'The Lancet', usually, in order to read its archived articles.

Again, *if* 'The Lancet' study has any scentific error(s), then it
should be questioned on a scientific basis. The usual name-calling
practised by Jerzy Ciruk reveals (or corroborates) more about himself,
but it does nothing to discredit 'The Lancet' study.

--Nick