Prestige Medical Journal Published Bogus Study

By

Richard Miniter debunks a highly politicized study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. He does a very good job of exposing some of the grounds on which the study, which claimed 100,000 deaths from the American invasion and occupation, can be judged a phony. But there are other anomalies.

The Lancet Study report by Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health data was researched in Sept 2004. That makes from the start of OIF on 19 Mar 2003 to the end of the study's data collection [assuming the entire month] 31 Sept 2004, the period of the data collection was 531 days.  If the Lancet study argues there were 100,000 resultant civilian deaths during the war period; that averages 188 deaths per day...

The study is over a year old now... extending the 100k deaths figure even until the date of the Times article, 6 January 2006, that equals 994 days since the start of OIF and today would average 100 civilian deaths per day. Yet on 6 January——in Iraq the day of several deadly terrorist bombings——the media also reported the 130 civilian casualties as being the worst civilian casualties in Iraq in four months.  So clearly the war in Iraq has not averaged daily deaths of 188 or even a 100 except on occasional instances.

One could rebut and argue that the civilian deaths were more concentrated, occurring in certain battle periods, yet in reality to obtain those casualty figures in condensed time almost demands the use of nuclear weapons, and I have yet to read of any Iraqi city disappearing from the map by whatever weapons.

Miniter is correct, this study is bogus; Dr Roberts' report gives new meaning to the term 'political science' and the esteemed Lancet medical journal having published it lowers its academic and professional credibility.

LTC Joe Myers   1 07 06

Richard Miniter debunks a highly politicized study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. He does a very good job of exposing some of the grounds on which the study, which claimed 100,000 deaths from the American invasion and occupation, can be judged a phony. But there are other anomalies.

The Lancet Study report by Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health data was researched in Sept 2004. That makes from the start of OIF on 19 Mar 2003 to the end of the study's data collection [assuming the entire month] 31 Sept 2004, the period of the data collection was 531 days.  If the Lancet study argues there were 100,000 resultant civilian deaths during the war period; that averages 188 deaths per day...

The study is over a year old now... extending the 100k deaths figure even until the date of the Times article, 6 January 2006, that equals 994 days since the start of OIF and today would average 100 civilian deaths per day. Yet on 6 January——in Iraq the day of several deadly terrorist bombings——the media also reported the 130 civilian casualties as being the worst civilian casualties in Iraq in four months.  So clearly the war in Iraq has not averaged daily deaths of 188 or even a 100 except on occasional instances.

One could rebut and argue that the civilian deaths were more concentrated, occurring in certain battle periods, yet in reality to obtain those casualty figures in condensed time almost demands the use of nuclear weapons, and I have yet to read of any Iraqi city disappearing from the map by whatever weapons.

Miniter is correct, this study is bogus; Dr Roberts' report gives new meaning to the term 'political science' and the esteemed Lancet medical journal having published it lowers its academic and professional credibility.

LTC Joe Myers   1 07 06