Even peer reviews report the existence of duplication disparities. It is reported on this report. You are being deliberate in remaining ignorant of the significant chances of this.
Iraq Death Toll
- Thread starter toby
- Start date
Read the actual report:
"But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths."
Also there is the significance of the question:
Here is an afterward where people reported why they (statistics practitioners) believed the report to be flawed (first Lancet Report):
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002546.html
Notice how many of them directly quote researchers that work directly in this field...
And more, from authors from both sides of the aisle:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
But heck, all these people must be wrong because you want to desperately believe this report.
Even their own report gives a HUGE margin of error, nearly +/- 33%...
Add in the other reports of the statistical meaninglessness of this type of sampling and we find that these reports CAN be (not are) very maleable to findings created from a first supposition rather than findings from significant scientific data.
"But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths."
Also there is the significance of the question:
Here is an afterward where people reported why they (statistics practitioners) believed the report to be flawed (first Lancet Report):
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002546.html
Notice how many of them directly quote researchers that work directly in this field...
And more, from authors from both sides of the aisle:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
But heck, all these people must be wrong because you want to desperately believe this report.
Even their own report gives a HUGE margin of error, nearly +/- 33%...
Add in the other reports of the statistical meaninglessness of this type of sampling and we find that these reports CAN be (not are) very maleable to findings created from a first supposition rather than findings from significant scientific data.
No, you have to subscribe. I read the article, the whole of it. Also many other ones since attempting to verify the validity of those numbers. Unfortunately I find that their validity are seriously in question.
Peer-review of the Lancet study:
"Given the controversy surrounding the previous Iraq paper that we published, it is worth emphasising the quality of this latest report as judged by four expert peers who provided detailed comments to editors. All reviewers recommended publication with relatively minor revisions. For example, one adviser noted that “this is an important piece of research which should be published because it is possibly the only non-government funded scientific study to provide an estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths since the US invasion.” She underscored the “powerful strength” of the research methods, a view supported by other reviewers. Indeed, this study adds substantially to the new field of conflict epidemiology, which has been evolving rapidly in recent years."
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694920/fulltext
"Given the controversy surrounding the previous Iraq paper that we published, it is worth emphasising the quality of this latest report as judged by four expert peers who provided detailed comments to editors. All reviewers recommended publication with relatively minor revisions. For example, one adviser noted that “this is an important piece of research which should be published because it is possibly the only non-government funded scientific study to provide an estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths since the US invasion.” She underscored the “powerful strength” of the research methods, a view supported by other reviewers. Indeed, this study adds substantially to the new field of conflict epidemiology, which has been evolving rapidly in recent years."
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694920/fulltext
Well, actually registration is free.
I just found out. Since you read it, I would have thought you could have told me registration was free, so I didn't have to fumble around for several minutes.
Oh well.
Read the first article that I posted, it talks about the nature of the peer review to be in question as well. Unheard of speed, as well as significant problematic reporting that was missed.
However, Slate often has reports from people who are. Attempting to use Ad Hominem without first even reading their articles is disingenuous. I also used different reports that actually link to peers reviewing the report. I have also posted the significant margin of error reported by the Lancet Report itself. If all of these things fail to convince you that the number is hardly perfect, then I don't think anything can remove those blinders of yours.
Why did you claim you read the lancet study, and that you had to subscribe?
You don't. Registration is free.
C'mon Damo - something sounds fishy
Honestly, if you read a report of a poll at election time with a margin of error of 1/3 that says that Bush would win and receive from 40 to 75% of the vote would you be touting it as accurate? Even though he did win and within that margin the poll would be useless.
Subscription is free. You are once again attempting to be disingenuous. I also did not claim to have read the Lancet Report. I said I read the article, the whole of it. I also stated that I did not have time at work to go into detail as to the statistical problems of this type of gathering....
Recently I read the Lancet report, probably at the same time you did.
Recently I read the Lancet report, probably at the same time you did.
Why did you claim you read the lancet study, and that you had to subscribe?
You don't. Registration is free.
C'mon Damo - something sounds fishy
Fess up Damo! You didn't read the Lancet study, because subsciption is not required, like you claimed.
Fess up dude! I'm about ready to hit the sack
Will you read my previous posts or are you going to keep repeating this idiocy?Fess up Damo! You didn't read the Lancet study, because subsciption is not required, like you claimed.
Fess up dude! I'm about ready to hit the sack
Very good then.
Are there always problems and assumptions with ALL probabalistic models. YES.
Is collecting rigourous and sufficient data in a violent, dangerous war-torn region problematic. YES>
Are the the results two peer-reivewed Lancet studies consistent with each other? YES. That's adds to their validity.
Are they the only two peer-reviewed scientific estimates of mortality in Iraq out there? YES. .
Are the lancet studies published in one of the world's most respected medical journals? A journal that has rigourous peer-review requirements? YES
Are there always problems and assumptions with ALL probabalistic models. YES.
Is collecting rigourous and sufficient data in a violent, dangerous war-torn region problematic. YES>
Are the the results two peer-reivewed Lancet studies consistent with each other? YES. That's adds to their validity.
Are they the only two peer-reviewed scientific estimates of mortality in Iraq out there? YES. .
Are the lancet studies published in one of the world's most respected medical journals? A journal that has rigourous peer-review requirements? YES
Even with all of that, statistically there is significant disparity even in their own report. 33% margin of error is HUGE. The original report form John Hopkins stated that it could be as much as 92,000 less and up to 94,000 more than the 100,000 number, that too is a HUGE disparity and a SIGNIFICANT margin of error. Reading even this article still doesn't give you all of the numbers.
From a human perspective, it really doesn't matter if the death toll is 300,000 or 650,000. Its a humanitarian crises. The Lancet study is quite clear about their methodology, and the range of deaths within statistical limits.
Bottom line: Its like a Mad Max world over there. Its a humanitarian crises and a clusterfuck.
G'nite Damo. See ya later.
Bottom line: Its like a Mad Max world over there. Its a humanitarian crises and a clusterfuck.
G'nite Damo. See ya later.