100,000 number probably way off---30,000-50,000 probably closer

[Zuni]

This study was a poll of various families in Iraq. It's results were far different than any estimates made by morgue records or health officials. The estimate made by Lancet and the Johns Hopkins reasearchers seems to be totally at odds with all other studies, including those by Human Rights watch and other groups.
In essence they polled Iraqis and asked them how many people had died in the last 18 months compared to before the war. Their study indicated that the death rate rose by close to 50%.

Here is one problem---they applied statistics to a country of 45 million people. Iraq has 25 million people. That skews results and overinflated the death count. Why did they apply results to a 45 million person country when that is nearly twice the size of Iraq?

Another one is that this estimate is completely at odds with all other studies done, and all records kept.

It seems to me that this study could also be influenced by some respondents not telling the truth. I have no idea if the reasearchers confirmed any of the deaths cited by the respondents. And it did not say how the victim died either. They could have been killed in simple street violence rather than a confrontation with US soldiers.

On edit---I am not posting this to defend the Bush admin like some posters have suggested. I am just pointing out my opinion when I read about this survey and how it was done vis a vis all other estimates.

[ProgressiveDave]

1. ?????

what 100,000 number are you talking about?

[Inland]

2. Hah! Gotchya, DU! Cheney right, Iraq a complete success!

[Zuni]

4. I am simply pointing out some facts about this study: it smells fishy

[fryguy]

3. we knew this was coming....

the only other spin they could have given the story was that the 100,000 were all terrorist folks and insurgents

[Zuni]

5. what spin?

I simply find it to be not accurate based on what I have read about the study.

[still_one]

6. what is your problem

whether it is 30000, 50000, or even 100000, a hell of a lot of civilians have lost their families needlessly

This does not even account for our arming of Saddam in the Iran Iraq war which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and thousands of Kurds.

And please, don't forget how we told the Shia to revolt against Saddam, and we would support that effort, but when Saddam's gunships came to stop them, we were no where to be seen, and thousands of Iraqii Shia were killed

I wonder how many people know what our government has done in our names?

[Zuni]

8. I agree with you wholeheartedly

I am just pointing out my opinion of the study because so many seem to be quoting it as a gospel when it looks like it is about as accurate as an internet poll to me

[still_one]

11. we are all concerned about this election

and anything that seems to minimize the incompentence of this administration will cause a definite reaction

[Zuni]

13. I just had problems with the study and the way it is quoted as gospel

I AM NOT trying to minimize the incompetence of the administration. 50,000 Iraqi and 1,000 American deaths, plus countless maimings, injuries and other sufferings is more than enough to hang Bush for in my opinion.

[displacedtexan]

7. Cite your source, please...

or cite some kind of supporting info when you dis Johns Hopkins.

BTW, hope you never need their #1 in the world medical care. I'd hate for you have such little faith in them.

[Zuni]

9. Baltimore Sun

Their study was a poll. I am citing what I read about it in the Baltimore Sun today, which also pointed out some things about this study that made it seem fishy to me.
Don't tell me how to think.

why is it a sin to question the popular opinion on DU? Just because you want to believe the study does not mean that it stands up to intense scrutiny.

[riverwalker]

23. so you read a freakin' ARTICLE? Not the report?

download the report at Lancet. READ IT. Then come back and criticise it.

[Zuni]

32. I was wrong about the 45 million v. 25 million

That was the number I saw in the article published in the Baltimore Sun this morning. The Study is not a sloppy piece of work, but I still question wether accurate results can be obtained among a hostile population this way.

[madrchsod]

10. didn`t catch the 45 million and yes

100,000 does seem to be rather high..but then who really knows but the dead.

[fryguy]

15. The dead know only one thing: it is better to be alive.

[ixion]

12. so how many people is it 'okay' to kill in the name of 'liberation'?

I think one is too many, but hey, I'm against violence. ;-)

[Zuni]

14. I did not say it was OK

I want to make that clear. I just found this study to be more like an internet poll and not a reliable indicator of casualties.

I did not say I supported Bush, Halliburton, Iraq.

I would like to point out that 50,000 unnessecary deaths is still quite high, and more than enough for me to be thoroughly disgusted with this administration.

[riverwalker]

24. a group of doctors went door to door

interviewing people face to face. It was not an internet poll.

[Zuni]

33. But in a hostile country, claims can be made just as easily as on the net

I know they said they got death certificates for households who claim to have lost several members, but what about households who claim to have lost one son?
How was any of this verified concretely?
Did they check claims with that of local governments, hospitals or morgues?
I didn't see if they did, but I haven't finished reading it or the other articles associated with it.

[sonicx]

16. doesn't really matter either way to me

They can do dozens of surveys if they want. Thousands are dead because of *.

[Zuni]

19. No argument here

I posted this because what I have read about it does not make it seem like the gospel truth many posters have tried to make it out as.

[not systems]

17. So freedom is marching on only 30-50 thousand graves...

thanks for clearing that up.

BFD the blood is on your hands.

We are all responsible for these deaths.

[Zuni]

18. why do you have to act like I'm some kind of pyscho bush bot

I simply said that I find the method and results of this study to be a little like Gallup oversampling Repubs in their polls. Quite simply: it does not add up in my book.

I don't know about yours.

[not systems]

20. There is no reason to...

assume that the methodology's in the other studies were correct.

In fact they were based mostly on official sources in the
Iraqi occupation government.

That government is made of people who have an interest in
making the US look good.

It is a matter of who butters the bread.

This study is at least done independently and based on
statistics not the word of US sycophants.

What is your excuse?

A gut feeling?

Looking in the heart of bombardiers?

What?

[riverwalker]

25. Zuni, just get the actual report

it's free after registering at The Lancet Online. It's 8 pages and very thorough. Maybe it will answer your concerns on the numbers.

[ixion]

28. yeah, not implying anything against you, Zuni...

more just lamenting the people who have died because of this tragic and illegal invasion.

[Zuni]

31. I've been lamenting that since March 2003

[HamdenRice]

21. The study is right -- everyone else is probably wrong ...

The reason the study is probably right is that it is published in the Lancet, the most reliable medical and public health journal in Britain and was peer reviewed. That means that the very best statisticians and public health experts read and reviewed the report blind (without knowing the authors) and basically re-ran the stats.

None of the other calculations were peer reviewed. Moreover, the other studies were based on morgue admissions and news reports. In a country where the majority of dead are buried informally, and in which most of the country is not accessible to reporters -- even from the Arab press -- the previous reports of death were undoubtedly grossly conservative. Even most of the authors of the earlier estimates say the Lancet report is probably correct (see NYT today).

Also, finally, the Lancet study is about total excess deaths -- not just deaths caused directly by war or American forces. The Lancet study includes all violent deaths that would not have occurred otherwise. These include robberies, rapes, tribal conflicts, etc that would not have existed but for the invasion.

[riverwalker]

22. I have the Lancet report in front of me

all 8 pages. Where are you getting that they based it on a population of 45 million? On page 2, they list the population totals used and it comes up to 25 million.

[riverwalker]

26. Link to the actual study here

not an article "about" the study. It's free after registration.
http://www.thelancet.com/journal

[Zuni]

29. reading it now

I was incorrect about the 45 million --- that was the number quoted in the Baltimore Sun.

[gpandas]

34. so your entire post is meaningless.

get your facts together. what is your probability and statistics knowledge?

[TahitiNut]

27. Of course. As everyone knows, Johns Hopkins and the Lancet are notorious

... for being slipshod and sloppy. They always make blunders like miscalculating the population of obscure countries like Iraq. The peer reviews of the Lancet are infamous for overlooking such a fine point. Yup.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Zuni]

30. I never claimed that. In fact I used to live right near JH

and knew some people who went there. Excellent School.

[lockdown]

35. Where do you get 30000-50000?

Averaging it out with other estimates is worthless as they are a joke. I remember after Baghdad fell conservative estimates put the Iraqi death toll at around 10000, and in all the time since conservative estimates have doggedly stuck around that amount. Agreed that given the methodology this figure shouldn't be treated as gospel, but it's probably the first serious attempt to account for Iraqi deaths, and with the researchers themselves calling the estimate conservative and the exclusion of Fallujah, if 100,000 is inaccurate the actual figure is just as (if not more) likely to be higher.

[Karenina]

36. There is something about

any attempt to "minimize" the damage Amurikka has done to people all over the world that makes me want to :puke: :puke: :puke:

Sorry kids, even 100,000 is a CONSERVATIVE estimate. It does NOT include so many who are too remote to report. You so often seem to have NO CLUE of the extent of the carnage committed in your names. You quote Amurikkkan, "We're really the good guys" sources and IGNORE COMMON SENSE that tells you in a heartbeat that your gub'mint has COMPLETELY FUCKED IT ALL UP.

What the hey, it's FRIDAY. Go to the mall, pick up some fast food, tank up and complain about the prices, then go home and watch "Survivor." What the hell do YOU care?

Disclaimer to my DU friends: You KNOW how it is when I get in rant mode. Tonight I "played to picture" at an art opening and found myself yet again explaining media manipulation to our VERY CONCERNED cousins and disabusing the idea that Amis could be THAT STUPID. To date I REFUSE to accept that you are. Gives a WHOLE NEW MEANING to "silent majority." How about that cell phone technology, eh? Never mind the overseas VOTE SUPPRESSION. :SIGH: