The Opinionated Bastard

Beyond vague assertions, can you please back the statement up that the study is absurd. There are a couple of legit methodological critiques [slightly higher than other sources baseline population, possibility of a selection methodology that results in more urban/densely popuolated areas being selected than should be selected, 2 clusters of no data due to data errors that were excluded from the analysis] but the study has the same fundamental structure as the 2004 study. Looking at that study and its raw data (which is available for public examination), the bevy of criticisms levied at it were unfounded.

This study does examine some of the variation between it and the IBC and UN numbers, and part of that is a look at the historical litarture on population based studies versus passive reporting which finds population studies tend to find at least 5x as many dead as passive information collection systems.

You need to make a much better case against this study than a simple dimissal, and I know that you are have the quantitative training to do so if you want to do that.

I think the IBC guys did a pretty good job, and I linked to them instead, since they’re much closer to the numbers. While its possible the media underreports to some extent, 650,000 Iraqis dead would be so obvious, that its easy to reject it on the face. In other words, I don’t need a lot of quantitative training to reject it: It fails the smell test.

So how many “excess Iraqi deaths” have occurred due to to the US invasion of goodness, kittens for children, jesus, democracy…whatever the reason is now.

You mean to say that John Hopkins University and the Lancet medical journal recklessly produces bunk studies for “lefty hippie” agendas?

interesting.

i also here nearly 2800 US soldiers have died for the ckickenhawk ideas…

reality would help you.