Article

2009-02-05 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Suuuuuuuurprise, suuuuuuurprise, surprise...
An academic whose estimates of civilian deaths during the Iraq war sparked controversy has been criticised for not fully co-operating with an inquiry.

Gilbert Burnham said in the Lancet medical journal in 2006 that 650,000 civilians had died since 2003 - a figure far higher than other estimates.

A polling association in the US said Dr Burnham had refused to supply "basic facts" for its inquiry into his work.
Some "guy" told me. He seemed legit.
It did not comment on the accuracy of his conclusion.
It didn't have to.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)began investigating Dr Burnham's work in March 2008 after a complaint by one of its members. His research was based on a survey of Iraqi households and concluded that by July 2006 about 655,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the US-led invasion. The Iraqi government does not keep precise records of civilians killed and neither do US forces, but in 2006 the Iraqi health ministry estimated that between 100,000 to 150,000 civilians had died.

The AAPOR's executive council said in a statement carried by the Associated Press news agency: "When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused." It said it wanted to know the wording of questions asked and instructions and explanations given to respondents. "Dr Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's standards committee.

She added that Dr Burnham's refusal to co-operate "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research."

A spokesman for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, where Dr Burnham works, said they were disappointed AAPOR had said he violated the code of ethics. However, the spokesman pointed out to AP that neither the researcher nor the school were members of the association.
So I guess that makes it okay. Good day, sir...
The level of civilian casualties in Iraq has been a controversial issue ever since the US-led invasion of 2003.

For Dr Burnham's study, researchers spoke to more than 1,800 families comprising 12,800 people, comparing mortality rates in selected areas before and after the invasion. Its conclusion was undermined by allegations that the number of people surveyed was too small and that the authors may have inflated the figures for political reasons.
Johnson! Stop the presses!!

The Lancet said it had no comment.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm...we'll get back to you. When? Probably the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
The independent Iraq Body Count, which counts only confirmed deaths, currently has a range of between 90,556 and 98,850.
Well it took long enough but..heh...heh...heh...

Let me tell y'all how bad this is.

It's a clear rule in science, be it biomedical or physical, that you always, always, always are transparent in your methods. You report a summary of your methods in whatever paper you write, and you always, always, always make original methods and data available on request. The Lancet makes clear, in its instructions to authors, that data must be available on request by qualified investigators via the STROBE guidelines.

Dr. Burnham clearly violated the rules. He clearly should be sanctioned. His article is an embarrassment to Lancet and his behavior is disgraceful.

Equally bad is the fact that Lancet resisted questions about his article for years. This is going forward only now that Bush is out of office. Since the early 70s we've seen increasing cases of politicized science and maniupulated data. The result is that many people distrust science as a whole Understandable, but not the right response IMO.

The right response is to enforce the scientific method and the peer review and transparency that make it work.

Posted by tu3031 2009-02-05 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 Liar Liar!

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-02-05 05:15|| 2009-02-05 05:15|| Front Page Top

#2 C'mon folks. The man personally observed those numbers falling off the back of the truck. Picked 'em up and dusted 'em off his ownself, he did.

Posted by Seafarious 2009-02-05 11:11|| 2009-02-05 11:11|| Front Page Top

#3 His research was based on a survey of Iraqi households and concluded that by July 2006 about 655,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the US-led invasion.

...and then it goes on to talk about various other numbers.

It's a misleading quantatative discussion that avoids some qualitative questions, like how did the civilians in question die.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-02-05 12:20|| 2009-02-05 12:20|| Front Page Top

#4 A key element of what I've called A World Gone Stupid (TM) since shortly after 9/11.

What's most troubling is how "transparent" the fraudulence of these stunts has been. Whether it's these absurd inventions about Iraq, or AGW. The clown Hansen at NASA has been pulling shit like this for years, and yet has not been fired and shamed into silence.

Yet again, it was criminally incompetent of the Bush administration and DOD not to take this nonsense on directly, publicly, and in a vituperative manner guaranteed to get attention. The absurdity of the numbers, given the nature and size of military operations and violence in Iraq at the time, was one thing. But it was equally important to remind everyone that almost all of the killing, and virtually ALL of the killing of non-combatants, was being done by the enemy, not the Coalition.

Since we now are ruled by Beltway retards and affirmative action mediocrities who are especially ignorant and morally inverted in these matters, it will only be the occasional, obscure b-slap like this, from within their respective communities, that will do anything to correct the record.

Posted by Verlaine 2009-02-05 12:23|| 2009-02-05 12:23|| Front Page Top

10:29 Besoeker
10:27 Super Hose
10:25 Super Hose
10:24 Super Hose
10:22 Super Hose
10:21 Super Hose
10:09 trailing wife
10:05 M. Murcek
10:04 Jefe101
09:57 Procopius2k
09:56 Beldar+Uneter3543
09:54 Procopius2k
09:52 Procopius2k
09:52 DarthVader
09:51 trailing wife
09:41 SteveS
09:36 SteveS
09:27 trailing wife
09:18 M. Murcek
09:08 Besoeker
08:55 ed in texas
08:54 ed in texas
08:50 ed in texas
08:49 Besoeker