Posted on 10/22/2006 12:47:13 PM PDT by quidnunc
The recent survey, published in the British medical journal, "The Lancet," claiming over 650,000 civilian deaths due to the liberation of Iraq, was quickly labeled propaganda, not science. Is the survey accurate? The answer is, apparently not. The survey is widely out of sync with casualty counts by other organizations, and by a wide margin. A 2004 study by the same authors claimed 100,000 civilian casualties – a survey at odds with one done by the United Nations at the same time (which estimated 18,000 to 29,000 deaths). To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq.
The Lancet survey, conducted by researchers from the American Johns Hopkins University, used a method that is generally acceptable for use in developing countries. This method involves the use of cluster points – interviews with a number of households (usually 10 to 40) in a given neighborhood in that country. This survey apparently only used 47 clusters of 40 people each, for roughly 1,800 people. The 2004 Johns Hopkins study used a grand total of 33 cluster points. This is a very small sample when compared to those of other surveys, which have used far more cluster points. For instance, the 2004 UN survey used 2,200 cluster points. The following year, a group of media outlets used 135 cluster points for their study. A survey in Kosovo used 50 cluster points for a population that was less than 6 percent of Iraq's. A 1992 Harvard study of Iraq used 271 cluster points. A survey of the Congo cited by the authors of the Johns Hopkins study used 750 cluster points.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
The radio doctor what's-'is-name is getting way out there on the Liberal limb. He says Lancet is highly respected and that Pres Bush is stopping stem cell research. He might be good on medicine, but he stinks on politics.
Actually, per the original Geneva Conventions, he is an illegal enemy combatant, who can be regarded as a spy, saboteur, or whatever, and summarily shot. He is not regarded as a civilian, but as an ememy who is fighting illegally.
Due to poor history education, and corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, and journalists, the American people have become very confused about this.
If you overcount 8 percent within the population, every bogus death claim is extrapolated by a factor of about x2500 - the difference between the sample and the population of Iraq.
YOU'VE SUMMED IT UP NICELY.
I understand what you are stating, but the accumulated number of those with whom no death certificate was found was 8 percent. So all the fingerpointing the Iraqis did to potentially non-existent people only amounted to 8 percent of the total.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.