Thread: Iraq News

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

More info on your pal George:George Soros is an admitted Nazi collaborator.

Yes, yes and GW's the Son of Satan blah, blah, blah.

Do try to keep on topic Booners. Do you have anything to say about the study that's actually relevant? I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a blog linking Soros to an imminent alien invasion Kerux, oops sorry, I mean Booners. But it's, none of it, relevant.

How about outright scientific fraud for starters, eh?

BIG -- AND DEVASTATING -- NEWS ON THAT LANCET STUDY claiming massive civilian deaths in Iraq. A National Journal cover story by Neil Munro suggests the possibility of outright scientific fraud.



Munro notes serious problems with the study, and a failure on the part of The Lancet's staff to determine if the data on which it was based -- data which the authors will not share -- were even true. In addition, there are problems with conflicts of interest and political bias. This is a big deal story; it'll be interesting to see if it gets the attention it deserves.


UPDATE: Some background here. (Bumped).


ANOTHER UPDATE: Much more here. "This should be a lesson to Old Media that a little digging is in order when something so out of line with previous reports shows up. But it’s one that probably won’t be learned — at least when outlier studies like Lancet’s fit their advocacy template."

Instapundit.com -

'Advocacy template' being the operative phrase here.
Deal with it ant...

Here's an interview with the chief liar himself - author of the study:

It may well be that some or even many of the males could have been combatants. It is not possible to judge the motives of the dead through surveys. We could record only what households told us.” — Gilbert Burnham

Pajamas Media: Jousting with the Lancet: Pajamas Media Interviews Professor Gilbert Burnham

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Deal with it ant...

Deal with what? You think all this death is some sort of game for you to 'win', Booners!?!

Booners, do you actually have any opinions that you didn't 'form' from reading right-wing blogs? That is to say do you have any actual opinions of your own?

This from what you posted:

Published by The Lancet, a venerable British medical journal

^
Tell us again how the Lancet Report is accurate?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Tell us again how the Lancet Report is accurate?

The Lancet Report is accurate and was published in an esteemed peer-reviewed journal.

Tell us again why the National Journal says it isn't. Actually tell us who the National Journal is why you're at it, who the author was.

Glad to see that death amuses you.

The George Soros funded politically activist Lancet featured a Saddam Hussein official with a history of fraud.

Both Lancet studies of Iraqi war deaths rest on the data provided by Lafta, who operated with little American supervision and has rarely appeared in public or been interviewed about his role.
...
Virtually everyone connected with the study has been an outspoken opponent of U.S. actions in Iraq.
...
Soros is not the only person associated with the Lancet studies who had one eye on the data and the other on the U.S. political calendar. In 2004, Roberts conceded that he opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset, and -- in a much more troubling admission -- said that he had e-mailed the first study to The Lancet on September 30, 2004, "under the condition that it come out before the election." Burnham admitted that he set the same condition for Lancet II. "We wanted to get the survey out before the election, if at all possible," he said

What's that again re. an 'Advocacy Template' again?

Is there anything at all you have to offer that an automated cut 'n paste from blogs machine wouldn't? Anything?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Tell us again how the Lancet Report is accurate?

The Lancet Report is accurate and was published in an esteemed peer-reviewed journal.

Tell us again why the National Journal says it isn't. Actually tell us who the National Journal is why you're at it, who the author was.

Various methodologies within the study were flawed.

"For starters, the authors of the Lancet study followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts."

The National Journal also identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings:

1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study;
2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and
3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.

So what if it's an 'esteemed peer-reviewed journal'? They got a left-wing bias to them - right or wrong?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So what if it's an 'esteemed peer-reviewed journal'? They got a left-wing bias to them - right or wrong?

Wrong as it happens. Do you even know what the Lancet is Booners? It's an independant medical journal. When have you ever heard of a left-wing medical journal and what purpose would it serve.

Frankly all you appear to have seen is the name Soros and that was enough to set you off on some bizarre and unfounded ranting about him being a Nazi collaborator (something else no doubt picked up from your right-wing blogs). You've got a one-track mind and it terminates at a very early juncture by the looks.

One day Booners you might learn that informed debate is mutally exclusive from cutting 'n pasting from partisan blogs and posting copious amounts of smilies ('laughing' at you own jokes which even you know not to be funny).

I fear that until that time you're bascially just wasting bandwidth.

^
Recall one of your New Years Resolution there anty?
Don't Bloviate in 2008, eh?

Whatsamatter? Still haven't addressed the three points I listed above that bring into question the methodology used.

No shit it's Medical Journal - imagine that! And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night too. So what? Does that exclude the author of the study from a biased political opinion? Political philosophy is like religion - differs on one's viewpoint and unfortunately, you are still mired in the far-left fever swamps.

Now don't go working yourself up into high dudgeon again...there's a good lad

As I mentioned in the other thread, the part of the funding allegedly given by the evil master of deceit, George Soros, himself, actually comes from Johns Hopkins, which receives funds from the Open Foundation. Soros provides funds to so many political organisations, it would probably be easier to list the ones which don't receive any directly or indirectly.

This whole Soros argument is moot.

There is legitimate criticism of the methodology and the resulting numbers, the numbers seem far too high. But then, others, like the 30k Bush used before, are equally fraud. The numbers are estimates. And by the way, Boon Mee, I assume you do know that the number is that of the mortality rate relating to the state of Iraq since the invasion, not to be confused with casualties resulting from violence.

Here Hopkins' answers to the National Journal article from Jan 04.

Originally Posted by stroller

As I mentioned in the other thread, the part of the funding allegedly given by the evil master of deceit, George Soros, himself, actually comes from Johns Hopkins, which receives funds from the Open Foundation. Soros provides funds to so many political organisations, it would probably be easier to list the ones which don't receive any directly or indirectly.

This whole Soros argument is moot.

There is legitimate criticism of the methodology and the resulting numbers, the numbers seem far too high. But then, others, like the 30k Bush used before, are equally fraud. The numbers are estimates. And by the way, Boon Mee, I assume you do know that the number is that of the mortality rate relating to the state of Iraq since the invasion, not to be confused with casualties resulting from violence.

Here Hopkins' answers to the National Journal article from Jan 04.

My point all along. Possibly, the Soros issue is a moot point but he has been behind, as you say a great number of funded studies that are decidely anti-Bush Administration.

Bottom line - the Lancet 'study' is a load of poppycock. Numbers inflated to inflame the BDS inflicted to further extremes.

"Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

I'm not so sure about his final line...

Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study - Times Online

Basically, you accuse the researchers to be dishonest and corrupt individuals guided by their political opinions and influenced by the source of finances.
This is speculation and conjecture because of the controversy concerning the results of the survey.

It's over-politicised, I did not notice those who are so vocal against the Lancet report protest when Bush used the clearly understated 30k number.

Originally Posted by stroller

Basically, you accuse the researchers to be dishonest and corrupt individuals guided by their political opinions and influenced by the source of finances.
This is speculation and conjecture because of the controversy concerning the results of the survey.

It's over-politicised, I did not notice those who are so vocal against the Lancet report protest when Bush used the clearly understated 30k number.

It might be conjecture on mine and others part but if it walks/quacks like a duck?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Still haven't addressed the three points I listed above that bring into question the methodology used

Because they're not your points, it's simply more cut 'n paste chaff. As I say, one day you might learn that informed debate is mutally exclusive from cutting 'n pasting from partisan blogs. All you've done yourself is to lauch unfounded and personal attacks on the person who funded the study and the authors of it. Then to top it all of you go on to admit:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It might be conjecture on mine and others part

...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

No shit it's Medical Journal - imagine that! And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night too. So what? Does that exclude the author of the study from a biased political opinion?

You refered to the Lancet as having a "left-wing bias", that's "so what". You clearly have little, if any, actual knowledge of the Lancet outside of that which you've gleaned from your knee-jerk reactionary blog sites.

Political philosophy is like religion - differs on one's viewpoint and unfortunately, you are still mired in the far-left fever swamps

And you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist - no matter how ridiculous the proposition you'll unthinkingly repeat it because it's right-wing so you have to. Govt's love people like you, actual independant thought being so dangerous and all. You'll lap up any scraps that fall from the table and then beg for more.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist -

And you are the sad equivalent of a Noam Chomsky Bot.
Mouthing all sorts of utopian platitudes which have absolutely no chance of working in the 'real' world...

That's it Booners, stick to the pre-programmed slogans like a good little undoctriney. Tow the party line, comrade.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That's it Booners, stick to the pre-programmed slogans like a good little undoctriney. Tow the party line, comrade.

Only party line I follow there anty is the Capitalist party line!

Yep that's you Booners, noted capitalist. How's the portfolio going?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yep that's you Booners, noted capitalist. How's the portfolio going?

Saw this one coming - everything's 'off the table' - doing just fine.
How's that Asian Market these days?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

How's that Asian Market these days?

What with the USD in free-fall, the sub-prime fiasco, 5+ trillion of national debt it's where the smart money is. Any capitalist worth their salt knows that Boon. I can give you some tips and investment advice if you like?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist - no matter how ridiculous the proposition you'll unthinkingly repeat it because it's right-wing so you have to. Govt's love people like you, actual independant thought being so dangerous and all. You'll lap up any scraps that fall from the table and then beg for more.

Greened for that!

The Neo-con apologists and spin doctors will attack anything that does not agree with their conveniently prepackaged conclusions for the party faithful. No matter on what absurd grounds- e.g the Lancet study is biased because it was, indirectly, part funded by Soros. So of course, the 'officially sanctioned Iraqi body bag count' must be better . The party faithful will dutifully lap it up, grateful they do not need to think for themselves.

It's a shame that populist politics has fallen to this level- just find a piece, any piece, of 'Good' news- whether true or false- and repeat it ad infinitum. Current example- 'the surge is working'. Conveniently ignored- the state of iraq now compared to pre invasion, the number of dead, dispossessed and maimed people, the Iraqi brain drain, the extensive use of aerial bombardment and unmanned drones to reduce 'our' casualties (little talk of pinpoint bombs or collateral casualties now), the sweetheart deals done with local warlord militia's, the fact that most of central and southern Iraq depends on food handouts to survive, and so on.

The casualties- the people of Iraq first and foremost, the dead and wounded on every side, peoples power of critical thinking and ability to analyse objective facts Back Home. Spin is what matters now, not Facts, and people are mostly unable to tell the difference anyway. Time to read Orwells 1984 again folks.

The beneficiaries- Big Oil, shareholders in Halliburton, Carlyle Group and the like, the military/industrial complex. How many of them have died in the invasion and occupation? And where is the senior Neo-con's money?

What a coincidence.

Perhaps the second saddest fact (after the holocaust that has been visited on the Iraqi's) is that those same 'party faithful' who unthinkingly accept eveything their government spins them, are in reality being treated as Mindless automatons and Cannon fodder.