IMPORTANT: Understanding The Lancet/Hopkins Report

[kpete]

illuminating, and important in understanding the Lancet/Hopkins report

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

UPDATE II: Two of the overnight pro-Bush epidemiologists who are objecting to this study — Mark Coffey of Decision08 and TheRealUglyAmerican — have made appearances in the comment section to explain why this peer-reviewed study using standard scientific methods is, as Coffey pronounced, “ridiculous on the face of it.” But it is clear that they do not actually understand what the study is examining.

They (and other of the above-linked Bush followers) seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that the 650,000 death toll is the number of Iraqis who have died violent deaths since our invasion. That is not what the study is purporting to measure. The study is comparing the mortality rate of Iraqis during the time of our occupation (including deaths by any cause, such as disease, famine, or anything else) to the mortality rate prior to the occupation, and based on the post-invasion increased mortality rate (13.1 deaths per 1,000 persons post-invasion versus the pre-war 5.5 figure), calculates that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died during the occupation than would have died during the same time frame in the absence of the invasion.

While it is true that the study claims that roughly 600,000 of the “excess deaths” are due to violence, that includes not only violence from American troops but also random crimes, government violence, and sectarian conflicts. It is unfathomable that anyone would think that they can whimsically dismiss away that figure as “ridiculous on its face” based on anything other than a desire that it not be true (or at least that it not
be known).http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/counting-iraqi-deaths.html

[eleny]

1. Thank you, kpete

This is illuminating.

[stop the bleeding]

2. much needed clarity for the knuckheads out there

you rock - keep up the good work

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. This is akin to holocaust denial.

Same sort of logic, same sort of motives.

[Virginia Dare]

4. That is the new Repuke meme...

if there's a poll out there that doesn't support your position, you just don't believe it. Witness this conversation between Chris Matthews and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (RePUKE-TN)

MATTHEWS: It doesn’t bother you that three-fifth of people over there say they like us being attacked, they want us dead?

BLACKBURN: That’s not a poll that I believe.

MATTHEWS: Oh, you don’t believe the Associated Press poll?

BLACKBURN: No, I don’t. No, I don’t.

MATTHEWS: All right, we’re not going to get any farther with this conversation. Thank you very much. It’s great having you on. I thought I had some facts there, but I guess it’s been blown away by Marsha Blackburn, Congresswoman from Tennessee, a Republican.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15106503/

[eleny]

7. I've seen her on Hardball and she has so little credibility

Sometimes she acts downright dizzy and then just blathers on soaking up the time with inanities and "Oh my goodness gracious me" statements. She rarely offers any substance except to illustrate how worthless Republicans can be. To think that she votes on crucial national and international policy issues makes me shiver.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Why would a "conservative" object to these numbers?

You'd think they'd be touting this in all the klaverns from coast to coast. bush has slaughtered 600,000 "ragheads." God Bless our great president. Yeeeehaw .. No doubt a heartwarming story for "christians" throughout our country.

[eleny]

8. Yeah, it speaks directly to the "nuke 'em" crowd

[countryjake]

20. Secretly, they are. Outwardly, they claim it's "politically" motivated...

as tho all of those Iraqis who were surveyed actually give two figs about our upcoming elections or are even aware of the current teetering balance between the two parties.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. last sentence of 2nd paragraph is missing a "NOT"

"calculates that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died during the occupation than would NOT have died during the same time frame in the absence of the invasion."

Important precision on this number, thanks.

[jackstraw45]

9. But...but...but Dumbya said the study was "discredited" today

Doesn't that make it true?

:sarcasm:

[Richard Steele]

10. Yes indeed. The methodology is so simple, even I can understand it.

There's not a damn thing "discredited" about
this study or its methodology. They really don't
get much clearer than this. It uses the most basic
of standard scientific methods.

Calling it "ridiculous" is, well...ridiculous.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

11. Thanks, kpete, and it is ironic...

Many of the rabid supporters of this war think that killing everyone over there is the solution, but they aren't too thrilled to see those numbers actually advertised, because it's bad for their polling numbers.

Also just sickening that they are trying to argue that "only" 50,000 or so have been killed. How many deaths are acceptable?

[daleo]

12. “ridiculous on the face of it.” = I don't want to believe it

They don't really have any other response.

[never cry wolf]

13. Keep in mind that this is over and above the period of the sanctions

If 600,000 are due to violence I am guessing a large chunk of the rest could be attributed to the degradation of the health care system and increase in disease due to lack of clean water, raw sewage, etc. So that things are worse health care wise than even when the sanctions were in place.

It would be interesting to compare to the death rate pre-GW1 before the sanctions were in place.

[Straight Shooter]

14. "The desire that it not be true" ...

... is one of the pillars for the Repubs creating their own reality. The other pillar is the desire that something be true, when actually it isn't; e.g., WMD in Iraq, and that bush won the election fair-and-square in 2000 and 2004.

[ComerPerro]

15. where have I seen this tactic before?

Anyone who doesn't recognize how true this is either doesn't want to admit the facts, or has some kind of agenda...


Hmm....


Wait, I know! In the runup to the Iraq war!

[countryjake]

16. Kick & Recommend

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. Great post but unfortunately it's pointless. RWers won't even put up their

own number estimate of deaths based on ANY facts of methodology, they just "don't like to hear the bad news". The explanation of how the figure is derived is important to understand what the study is trying to show, but for RW ideologues, they are so far from wanting any factual analysis of this that even explaining this relatively simple methodology and concept to them is pointless.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Raksha]

18. That's how I understood it when the story broke last night.

I never believed the 655,000 figure was the number of deaths directly attributed to the actions of American troops. I understood it as the total number of deaths from ALL war-related causes, including sectarian violence, death squads, suicide bombers, etc.

On edit: Not that it's going to matter one tiny little bit to the freeptards, with their addiction to straw-man arguments. They love telling us we said something we didn't, just like Bush with his "Some people think we shouldn't be wiretapping terrorists." I know I'll be hearing for the next six months that "Libs claim Bush killed 655,000 Iraqis!" when we never said that. We *ARE* saying Bush started the war that killed 655,000 Iraqis, but that's exactly what they don't want to hear!

[countryjake]

19. Exactly, that's how it was reported on our local news on Tues.

And they were very careful to point out that it was a reflection of the severity of the mortality situation now, as opposed to before our invasion.

[NMMNG]

21. K&R

:kick:

[John Gauger]

22. And, let's recall that the mortality rate for the year preceding

the invasion was unusually high as a result of the eight-month long, massive bombing campaing that occcurred in the runup to the war. Bush and Blair were still claiming that war was out of the question when they began to blow the shit out of Iraq. Shock and Awe is just the portion of that campaign that was caught on camera.