You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Soros Funded Lancet Excessive Death Number Study
2008-01-13
surprise, surprise! Or not? Every one of the useful idiots on his payroll should be noted and blacklisted
A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
who?
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
whores in academia? Who'da thunk it?
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
and who was responsible? Name names, dammit
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset. His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose SorosÂ’s sponsorship.
Nonsense. All funding sources are supposed to be revealed in each and every article in a medical journal. I routinely list every source, and no paper I submit to a reputable journal could be published without such a listing.

Further, many journals maintain 'blacklists' of certain funding sources. As one example, many medical journals (including a couple that I routinely submit to) will refuse to review/publish any manuscript that has been funded in whole or in part by the tobacco industry. I have to certify that I've not received any tobacco money, and lying about this would cause the journal to retract my work (however valid it might appear to be) and then contact my Dean. I can promise you I wouldn't do well in any such review.

So this statement that the Lancet "didn't break any rules" is utter nonsense.
Posted by:Frank G

#14  Photobucket
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-01-13 17:54  

#13  Hokay, hokay, enough about Soros and death. Comes dangerously close to redacting.

I left comments in-line about Lancet's rules about disclosing funding sources.

AoS
Posted by: Steve White   2008-01-13 15:21  

#12  At one point MIT and Columbia were respected institutions. Now I question whether they have any faculty that are not hacks? In what way does this study apply to epidemiology? In what way was this even a study? How would this garbage ever pass peer review? That's obvious. I can't imagine that the content of Robert's courses would be superior to the type of indoctrination taught at USF for much cheaper.
Posted by: Super Hose   2008-01-13 15:13  

#11  Another fact worth noting in regard to political motivation - and ignored by the MSM is that the Iraqi lead investigator on the Lancet study - the one overseeing the surveys and supervising data collection was none other than a high official in Sadam's health ministry. This is the same guy who published the claim of a million Iraqi children being the victim of the pre-war sanctions regime.
Posted by: WTF   2008-01-13 14:49  

#10  How old is Soros anyway?
Any chance of "Natural Death" fairly soon?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-01-13 13:08  

#9  The Lancet was always the most highly respected medical publication. That changed with these revelations. The editors should be sacked.
Posted by: doc   2008-01-13 11:03  

#8  Personally, I wish someone had the coruage to remove Soros from the breathing 5 years ago. THe world would be a better place.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-01-13 11:02  

#7  Damage is already done. Compare the number of original lancet stories and regurgitation of the 650,000 killed number versus mentions of the Lancet study getting debunked.

Remember, we're just as bad as Saddam.

Saddam's torture chambers open under new management.

Who are the real terrorists.

Posted by: danking70   2008-01-13 10:44  

#6  The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
Posted by: Icerigger   2008-01-13 10:10  

#5  Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant."

Yeah, that and rushing to publish it right before the US presidential election.

But this wasn't a political hit - no not at all!
Posted by: WTF   2008-01-13 09:44  

#4  The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose SorosÂ’s sponsorship.

No, but like TRN, they have permanently damaged their reputation. It is amazing how many of these "professional" magazines are just whore sheets for political causes.
Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611   2008-01-13 05:54  

#3  Soros is one of the few individuals, about whom I can say, with a clear Christian conscience, should just hurry up and die.

That would be very nice indeed. But he has a whole brood of little Soros's that will carry on his evil works.
Posted by: Titus Crineting6410   2008-01-13 05:15  

#2  Soros is one of hte few individuals, about whom I can say, with a clear Christian conscience, should just hurry up and die.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-01-13 02:29  

#1  "I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research." -- meaning, "I would have made up the same figures even without Soros money."
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418    2008-01-13 01:33  

00:00