Comments on: Will Old Media Learn a Lesson from Lancet? Doubtful

By: JAL

JAL — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:54:16 +0000

Another kick to this dying horse, not that anyone in the “reality based” world cares: The original discussion of the funder (George Who?)and “scientists” (man, do they give an honorable professional a truly stinking name …) had a specific admission that the results were to be published by Lancet in a specificed time frame. So Lancet editors are guilty of trying to influence a US election. Now *that’s* really top tier science.

I remember the results being splashed around, and in my limited math and common sense experience I thought - “Something smells in London.”

But hey, now that the ’surge’ is success, it’s snowed in Baghdad, and who knows how many Iraqis and Coalition soldiers and marines have died needlessly because the high minded study fueled the anti-coalition anger instead of the anti-Al qaeda anger … Now we might look at who was responsible for what — 50,000 unnecessary deaths?

And it isn’t George “Bush.”

By: Pickerhead :: Pickings from the Webvine ::January 6, 2008

Pickerhead :: Pickings from the Webvine ::January 6, 2008 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:16:37 +0000

[…] Bizzy Blog with the last of the MSM BS. Remember just before the 2006 elections when the Lancet published a study that showed deaths in Iraq were 10 times the previous totals. National Journal found out it was all lies. Lies funded by George Soros. […]

By: Iain

Iain — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:20:55 +0000

I remember when this study first came up and thought it was a little rich then, yep somehow everyone missed over 90% of dead Iraqis.

By: Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » BIG — AND DEVASTATING — NEWS ON THAT LANCET STUDY

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:11:48 +0000

[…] UPDATE: Much more here. “This should be a lesson to Old Media that a little digging is in order when something so […]

By: Blogger News Network / The Lancet Body count Fraud Continues to unravel

Blogger News Network / The Lancet Body count Fraud Continues to unravel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:33:35 +0000

[…] BizzyBlog has a summary if you aren’t familiar with the story: that right before the US Congressional elections, the Lancet published an article claiming a large number of deaths since the US invasion: a number that exceeded other estimates byÂ tenfold. […]

By: apb

apb — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:03:03 +0000

Mix this up with a couple of temperature-cluster studies, and you’ll have deaths caused by global warming.

What a bunch of miserable frauds. For the greater good, naturally.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:45:14 +0000

One glaringly obvious problem with the study methodology that even the National Journal failed to bring up is the fact that only portions of Iraq have been very violent, so any “extrapolation” would be totally fraudulent from the start.

Besides, what is the justification for such a cumbersome “cluster study” if the purpose is to find out how many violent civilian deaths have occurred in Iraq? Obviously, other groups on both sides of the ideological divide have found simpler, more accurate, and to-the-point methods of coming up with civilian casualty figures in Iraq.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:33:38 +0000

There is an assumption that anything produced by scientists has an imputed credibility. Add to this that the Lancet study told a lot of people what they desperately wanted to hear. Of course, anyone who pays attention to the history of science knows that such an assumption of credilibilty is immensely foolish (see eg Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”). The bottom line is that every aspect of the study raised a red flag, yet the media lapped it up.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:18:03 +0000

Sounds like a Muzzie with an axe to grind, coupled with an anti-Western Democracies organization. Looks pretty clear that it’s more anti-west lies.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:13:33 +0000

#1 and #2, excellent points. This is “science” decided to fix things to a pre-ordained conclusion.

By: Joe C.

Joe C. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:02:10 +0000

Hence, the argument against sampling for the census.

By: steveaz

steveaz — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:12:36 +0000

The popularized use of clusters to extrapolate stats brings with it enormous potential for abuse by activists anxious to bypass institutional constraints on their researcher-biases.

This reader interprets evidence of their usage as a tip-off to the researcher’s politicized intent.

In fact, (and just as pernicious as the Lancet reports) I recall from the statistician’s testimony before the 2000 Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore that, in order to install an Al Gore in the White House, the Gore campaign team hoped to extrapolate clusters of dimpled chads derived from a recount of votes from select Democratic counties, and then disseminate them via “friendly” media in exactly this same way: recall the mantra, “Count Every Vote!”

That was the Dem’s plan in 2000, but the SCOTUS stepped in. So, in 2004 and 2006, it looks like Soros’ party asked the “respected” Lancet to run front guard for ‘em instead.

Only now we’re supposed to trust them to extrapolate a clusters of “dimpled” death certificates from a war zone, and their mantra has changed to, “Count Every Death!”