655,000 estimated Iraqi's dead in new study

by **mholtz** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:01 am

Sorry for the .pdf.

According to the British medical journal "The Lancet" and a study from Johns Hopkins school of public health an estimated 655 000 more Iraqis have died as a consequence of the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq than would have been expected in a non-conflict situation.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/image ... 694919.pdf

The used methods used to calculate deaths after natural disasters.

**Sponsor**

by **StrykerFSU** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:32 am

In my nonexpert opinion, this study is hogwash (I love that word). So strange that it came out 3 weeks before an election...

The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period.

143,000 pre-war? Really??? If that's true, Saddam was worse than I thought.

The figures are based on a survey conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad between May and June of 1,849 households

1,849 households...that's almost as good as an exit poll on election day!

Other estimates based on think tank figures and media sources calculate the number of extra Iraqi deaths to be much lower. The Iraq Body Count Database calculates that between 43,850 and 48,693 civilian deaths have occurred since the invasion.

[url]http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&story
ID=2006-10-11T134003Z_01_L11717456_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-DEATHS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2[/url]

by **SLUDoubleDeuce** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:12 am

AP analysis of the study. I found this quote very telling...

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMC5PG0.html

The study also states that roughly 31% of the deaths can be attributed to coalition forces. Although it didn't see it in there, the rest must be the result of, you guessed it, gnomes! Or Islamic Extremists. Take your pick.

by **laxfan25** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:44 am

StrykerFSU wrote:
The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period.

143,000 pre-war? Really??? If that's true, Saddam was worse than I thought.

A minor error in your analysis - the survey measured all deaths pre- and post-invasion. The 143,000 pre-war were almost all from natural causes, not in Saddams's torture network. The survey showed that post-invasion the number of non-violent deaths went up slightly, but not statistically significant. The 600,000+ estimate is of violent deaths, the leading percentage from gunshots, followed by IED's, airstrikes and car bombs. Of the violent deaths, the percentage was 31% by coalition forces. With the large increase in sectarian violence of late, it shows that Iraq is not a safe place to be - security is non-existent.

by **sohotrightnow** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:05 am

Stupid liberal media strikes again! There have been no deaths in Iraq! We are in Iran now. Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished?" The war in Iraq is over people.

by **Beta** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:26 am

sohotrightnow wrote:Stupid liberal media strikes again! There have been no deaths in Iraq! We are in Iran now. Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished?" The war in Iraq is over people.

by **mholtz** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:46 pm

StrykerFSU wrote:In my nonexpert opinion, this study is hogwash (I love that word). So strange that it came out 3 weeks before an election...

The team's study, published online by the medical journal The Lancet, estimated pre-war deaths in Iraq at 143,000 a year, and said Iraq's death rate is now 2-1/2 times that of the pre-war period.

143,000 pre-war? Really??? If that's true, Saddam was worse than I thought.

The figures are based on a survey conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad between May and June of 1,849 households

1,849 households...that's almost as good as an exit poll on election day!

Other estimates based on think tank figures and media sources calculate the number of extra Iraqi deaths to be much lower. The Iraq Body Count Database calculates that between 43,850 and 48,693 civilian deaths have occurred since the invasion.

[url]http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&story
ID=2006-10-11T134003Z_01_L11717456_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-DEATHS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2[/url]

According to Human Rights Watch, Saddam killed 296,000 people in 24 years. That's about 12,000 per year. Many of the people in this study are cited as military age males. There were a lot that died in the actual invasion.

I'm not actually saying this number is correct, but it is eye opening. The lancet is Brittain's equivalent of the New England Journal of Medicine, so this isn't just some bunk reaserchers making stuff up.

This is the only scientific study of the death tolls in Iraq. The ones that count about 48,000 are just people reported to hospitals.

by **Beta** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:58 pm

Don't forget..a good portion of Saddam's war crimes happened when he was our alli in the 80's. I guess the key to the city of Detroit didn't make him stop gassing folks.

by **StrykerFSU** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:57 pm

Laxfan25, you are right if you accept the methods of the study which I do not (but I'm a scientist and by nature skeptical). My real problem comes from using 1,849 interviews to extrapolate to some number that is representative of the whole nation. I should have left my Saddam crack out of it.

No one said that this was an example of media bias but the headline link for The Washington Post only stated "Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000" so interpret that as you see fit.

It was pointed out that both this study and a previous study were published shortly before elections. Some may interpret this as the study's authors attempting to influence an election.

by **laxfan25** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:00 pm

I think 1,850 responses would typically be acceptable for polling results, no?

by **Sonny** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:10 pm

laxfan25 wrote:I think 1,850 responses would typically be acceptable for polling results, no?

Just like all the polls that showed Kerry winning the last Presidential election?

Interviewing less then 2000 people and extropolating 2/3 of a million deaths doesn't seem quite right any way you slice it. Your mileage may vary.

by **Tim Whitehead** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:32 pm

Actually it was 2000 households. Over 12000 people.

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

by **Sonny** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:08 pm

I stand corrected.

Quick math still tells that they are extrapolating that figure on less then 2% of their subjects.

by **Sonny** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:50 pm

A bit of context about Dr. Richard Horton ("The Lancet" editor) speaking to the crowds assembled at Sept. 23 Anti-War Rally in Manchester, UK. He sure sounds "fair and balanced" to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U&eurl=

I almost thought he was going to get on his soapbox about global warming... :roll:

by **LandonMLudlow** on Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:56 pm

sohotrightnow wrote:Stupid liberal media strikes again! There have been no deaths in Iraq! We are in Iran now. Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished?" The war in Iraq is over people.

Next time don't even post real sentences, just write "This in place of a sarcastic radical-left comment"

I've been looking at this board 2 weeks and already have you pegged as a wacko mindless liberal with a perchant for weak irony.

YOU'RE NOT FUNNY