Iraq mortality studies criticised
Posted by ALP on March 25 2008, 10:32 » Uploaded 25/03/08 11:20

Criticism of Lancet 2006 study
(from Dr Mark van der Laan)

For credentialists: Dr Mark van der Laan is the Jiann-Ping Hsu/Karl E. Peace Professor in Biostatistics and Statistics at UC Berkeley. In 2005, Dr. van der Laan received the Presidential Award of the Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS).

On the Lancet study, Dr. van der Laan (with Leon de Winter) writes:

We conclude that it is virtually impossible to judge the value of the original data collected in the 47 clusters. We also conclude that the estimates based upon these data are extremely unreliable and cannot stand a decent scientific evaluation. It may be that the number of violent deaths is much higher than previously reported, but this specific report, just like the October 2004 report, cannot support the estimates that have been flying around the world on October 29, 2006. It is not science. It is propaganda. [Emphasis added])*

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Ejewell/lancet061.pdf
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Ejewell/LancetNov061.pdf
*(Links previously posted in comments section here)

Criticism of IBC
To provide "balance", I should add that Iraq Body Count's work has also been criticised. For example, Gabriele Zamparini (a blogger) describes IBC as "amateurish" and claims they are "deceiving" you. However this kind of criticism seems limited to a small group of people based around the website Medialens, Lancet co-author Les Roberts and a few Lancet-defending (and IBC-smearing) blogs.

Comment 01 – sonny March 26 2008, 08:26

The credentialists may like to read this too:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials[...]

To be generous, I think we could say this strongly echoes at least these conclusions of van der Laan:

"it is virtually impossible to judge the value of the original data collected in the 47 clusters..." and "...estimates based upon these data are extremely unreliable"

But then, Gabriele Zamparini rejects all of this, so who are we to take them seriously? Les Roberts may have even "responded" to them somewhere. They are not reasonable and informed evaluations, as they might appear to the novice. They are genocide denial providing crucial support to war criminals.

Also, ALP, the last part of your posting seems to sarcastically paint the "criticisms" of IBC as kind of over the top, cultishly narrow, and not as reasonable as those above. But I note you have given no consideration at all to how loudly the second group has made them, or how persistently. So how can we take you seriously?

Shame on you.