Comments on: Missing From That Lancet Article on Iraq

By: The Interface

The Interface — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:40:09 +0000

For more details and analysis of the methodology from a slightly more statistical perspective, but hopefully still readable, try http://theinterface.townhall.com/g/8c4c50a3-75be-4c03-adf8-7684cf43be0a

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:03:22 +0000

It is amazing the number of publications that destroy their credibility by publishing politicaly oriented drivel. They don’t seem to catch on to the fact that all they accomplish is to diminish their voice.
Curious argument from Red State – are you saying that they would have been better off under Sadam as fewer would have died – or that the struggle for a reasonably free and open society is not worthwhile?
Ditto Brian’s remarks on the Pulitzer – you have been the difinitive voice on that important subject.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:58:12 +0000

You’re absolutely right –

Had I been a reviewer, I’d have put the kabosh on it straight away, using words something like these, though more polished:

“The authors failed to address the potential impact of confounding variables — namely the contribution of Iran, Syria, etc.) — to their data. This is a fatal omission that renders all their conclusions invalid, and the paper should not be published in its present form.”

But if memory serves, this is not the first time the Lancet has published such crapola (this example was debunked soon after it appeared).

So — if the Lancet and its reviewers are unable to distinguish good science from bad, or the journal deliberately publishes papers for political impact rather than on the basis of scientific merit, why should we regard any article published in it, be it about Iraq or some purely medical matter, to be credible, much less authoritative?

Alas, this is just another example of politicizing science . . .

(And, Claudia, I continue to be outraged that you weren’t awarded a Pulitzer for your Oil for Food work.)

Brian

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:53:45 +0000

Expert pollster John Zogby is "95 percent certain" that around 650,000 Iraqis civilians have died since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003."

I guess thats one more nail in the Zogby polling empires coffin.

By: The Red State Baron

The Red State Baron — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:50:40 +0000

It’s politically incorrect among conservatives (and today’s conservatives are much more wedded to their own PC orthodoxies than liberals are to theirs) to say that Iraq was better off under Saddam. But PC be damned: Iraq was better off under Saddam, and there’s no reason to believe that more Iraqis would be dying if Saddam, horrible as he was, were still in power.

The point is not to “blame” the U.S. or U.K.; the point is simply to face the reality that after the “liberation” of Iraq, many more people have died than would have died if we hadn’t invaded. We should learn from that and reject the conservative PC orthodoxy that overthrowing a dictator always makes things better.