The authors of "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq", citing a death rate (5.5/1000 per year) before the Coalition invasion and comparing it to the post-invasion death rate (13.2/1000 per year) has determined that the war is responsible for 655,000 deaths in Iraq. Given that the survey of more than 1800 households randomly selected in clusters that represent Iraq's population AND is a standard tool in epidemiology used by the US Government and many other agencies, how can one question the methodology of this peer-reviewed paper in an eminent journal?
President Bush said ""I don't consider it a credible report...The methodology is pretty well discredited."
Considering he has ZERO science background, I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Specifically, what methodology does he have issues with?
2006-10-11 14:37:46 · 5 answers · asked by The ~Muffin~ Man 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, I am glad to see that Ruki's rebuttal was so powerful. I am sure that the Lancet will publish his "it must be propaganda" line as it is backed up with data. Good work.
2006-10-12 15:16:15 · update #1
Easy, he disagrees with the conclusions. So, he states that the study is questionable. But, it *is* an estimate.
He has issues with methods that do not give results that agree with his worldview.
2006-10-11 14:42:05 · answer #1 · answered by Your Best Fiend 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because, the critics of the report say those gathering the data took number from familys that said they people died versus taking an official death count from Iraqi government...so I have heard.
2006-10-11 14:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
His remark was based on the fact that this study's results were so different from any prior study.
2006-10-11 14:39:41 · answer #3 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is to ignorance as black is to night.
2006-10-11 14:39:33 · answer #4 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just more propaganda.
2006-10-11 14:39:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋