A Bogus Study On Iraq Casualties
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
----------------------------------------------------
THE COUNT
655,000 War Dead?
A bogus study on Iraq casualties.
BY STEVEN E. MOORE
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to
read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that
655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there
have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have
been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any
numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin
of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.
The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the
methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here,
in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting
individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration,
door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random,
and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each
neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the
expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing
virtually impossible.
However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough
cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of
Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used
47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing:
I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using
only 47 cluster points.
Bingo! -- DSH
Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each
for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not
everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized
sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005
survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel
used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that
of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.
What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get
crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more
cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The
UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000
Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months
prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33
cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian
deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times
the cluster points.
The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically
suspect--and the one they just published even more so.
Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a
national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I
contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of
the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster
points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these
are.
Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other
studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the
group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue
Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster
points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used
271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster
points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to
Iraq's 27 million.
When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices
were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what
other sections of the survey should be ignored.
Bingo! This Les Roberts appears to be a charlatanistic fraud. -- DSH
With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey
is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive
method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and
other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to
compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a
census.
Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic
questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the
day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and
compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he
had not even looked at the Iraqi census.
Les Roberts = Incompetent Fraud & Charlatan. -- DSH
And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the
2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded
demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the
first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask
demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try
using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.
Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is
no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of
Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.
Bingo! Perhaps that's what they intended. -- DSH
Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis
and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and
policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this
much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.
Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained
Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
2006.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained
> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
> 2006.
So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US Army.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Bryn
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
>
>> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained
>> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
>> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
>> 2006.
>
>So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
>
>In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US Army.
Reasoned Factual Deniability.
The new propaganda weapon.
>
--
Bryn
My wife has ruined my 'elf!
I think she sat on him..
Billzz
news:eh5lus$rgj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
>
>> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International,
>> trained
>> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
>> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
>> 2006.
>
> So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
>
> In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US Army.
>
> --
> William Black
Not necessarily. There are any number of firms associated more with one
party than the other, but whose work is legitimately done, i.e. they get the
answers, not necessarily what the sponsor wants. I worked for a Washington
D.C. firm, BDM (then known as Braddock, Dunn, & McDonald) who did mostly
operations research/systems analysis. Braddock was a staunch Democrat and
McDonald was a staid Republican. Maybe their political contacts helped get
contracts (but the proposals were competed for) but there was no politics in
the contract deliverables. They got the "best" answer, not necessarily what
they wanted to hear.
And I think it is impossible to expect that you would ever hire a totally
"neutral" person, anyway. At least the politics are out in the open, which
guarantees that the results will get even more scrutiny.
Here's a partial list of some "think tanks." An "inside the beltway" person
could go down the list and tick off which were "more" Republican or
Democrat. Brookings Institution (I would say) is more Democrat.
http://www.sil.org/sildc/ThinkTanks_DC.htm
William Black
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a402e$453667f9$9440b19b$27...@STARBAND.NET...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eh5lus$rgj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
>>
>>> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International,
>>> trained
>>> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003
>>> to
>>> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
>>> 2006.
>>
>> So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
>>
>> In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US
>> Army.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>
> Not necessarily. There are any number of firms associated more with one
> party than the other, but whose work is legitimately done, i.e. they get
> the answers, not necessarily what the sponsor wants.
I assume they're not writing opinion pieces for the Republican press?
Billzz
>
> "Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
> news:a402e$453667f9$9440b19b$27...@STARBAND.NET...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:eh5lus$rgj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
>>>
>>>> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International,
>>>> trained
>>>> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003
>>>> to
>>>> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005
>>>> to
>>>> 2006.
>>>
>>> So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
>>>
>>> In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US
>>> Army.
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Black
>>
>> Not necessarily. There are any number of firms associated more with one
>> party than the other, but whose work is legitimately done, i.e. they get
>> the answers, not necessarily what the sponsor wants.
>
> I assume they're not writing opinion pieces for the Republican press?
>
> --
> William Black
I don't know about this example, but studies done by The Brookings Institute
(for e.g.) have been quoted by the Democratic National Committee, so I see
no difference in what each political party does. In fact, I expect it. You
seem surprised that some work winds up as an "opinion piece" for the
Republican press. At least it's out in the open, so one gets to scrutinize
the results.
This is nothing on the scale of counting people. I remember the big
decision about Vietnam reenforcements centered on how many enemy there were.
Westmoreland's staff was counting armed Viet Cong, while the CIA was adding
the support structure. Big difference. CBS made a big show out of the
"conspiracy" which wound up in a lawsuit. There was no conspiracy, they
just disagreed on who to count.
I haven't looked at this study, but the results probably hinge on the
definition of what is a "casualty" and I would have to dig deep to do an
audit trail. But I'm retired from all that now. I'm just not surprised
that there exists a political slant to *some* studies.
Ken Wood
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eh5lus$rgj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
> >
> >> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International,
> >> trained
> >> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
> >> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
> >> 2006.
> >
> > So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
> >
> > In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US Army.
> >
> > --
> > William Black
>
> Not necessarily. There are any number of firms associated more with one
> party than the other, but whose work is legitimately done, i.e. they get the
> answers, not necessarily what the sponsor wants. I worked for a Washington
> D.C. firm, BDM (then known as Braddock, Dunn, & McDonald) who did mostly
> operations research/systems analysis. Braddock was a staunch Democrat and
> McDonald was a staid Republican. Maybe their political contacts helped get
> contracts (but the proposals were competed for) but there was no politics in
> the contract deliverables. They got the "best" answer, not necessarily what
> they wanted to hear.
He mentions specific objections to the process used. There should be
enough qualified people around to come to a consensus about this large
Lancet number being credible or not.
KW
William Black
"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161194998.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well The Lancet is a peer reviewed independent scientific journal.
In the past when they've published controversial research they say, quite
properly, that they have peer reviewed the research and it was found
acceptable by the peer review group.
In that case the only acceptable refutation would be peer reviewed research
that disproved their findings.
I await with interest a US government survey that is put out to peer review
prior to publication in an independent learned journal.
Opinion pieces in the popular press are exactly that and no more...
Tiglath
"Ken Wood" <ken_w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161194998.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Like what?
Like Blair's?
"Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique
rather than a detailed body count."
Why is extrapolation necessary wildly inaccurate?
And how is actual body count more accurate with so many no-go areas, and
with countless bodies not making it to hospitals and morgues? Body counts
are NECESSARILY underestimates.
"Our worries centred on the fact that the technique in question appeared to
treat Iraq as if every area was one and the same."
That's Blair using disinformation again. He relies again on people taking
his word at face value and on that only a few will bother to check that the
Lancet's method in fact tested 33 areas of Iraq in all regions of the
country, thus regional variations were taken into account.
"Secondly, the survey appeared to assume that bombing had taken place
throughout Iraq. Again, that was not true. It had been focused primarily on
areas such as Fallujah."
That's Blair at it again. Fallujah being non-typical was EXCLUDED from the
final estimate.
"Consequently, we did not believe that extrapolation was an appropriate
technique to use."
Extrapolation is a universally recognized, valid statistical method used
constantly. It's a sound alternative to a census. And given the sample
size of this study it is likely much more accurate than the political polls
based on much smaller sample sizes of around one thousand.
The truth is that the Lancet report is the most comprehensive study on Iraqi
civilian deaths since 2003 to date. Anyone willing to credible rebuff this
effort has the responsibility to do a better survey themselves. Rebuttal
by misrepresentations like Blair's won't do. And on our side we have
General Franks stating "we don't do body counts." Therefore, this is the
best we've got, which means that rebuttals are necessarily based on
ignorance since no better survey exists.
Billzz
news:1161194998.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I didn't know it was the Lancet study...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
Well, there are always objections to taking a sample, then projecting to a
whole population. Given the "honest broker" of a third party adds to
credibility. Then the population has to be checked. For e.g. if only the
major battle areas were interviewed, and not places where there was not
conflict, in proportion to the population, then the projection is scewed
towards *more* casualties. Then there is the definition of what is a
casualty. And certainly not least is the absence of blame for Iraq on Iraq
casualties, which recently seem to be much more than two years ago - and far
more than casualties inflicted by coalition activites - which is about the
date of the study. I haven't seen the study, so have no opinion one way or
the other.
It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing other
Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
D. Spencer Hines
> cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion
> of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team
> says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews.
> This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less
> an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.
Steven E. Moore
D. Spencer Hines
crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more
cluster points."
"There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in
April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian
deaths due to the war."
"This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by
the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between
69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths -- four to five times as high as the UNDP
survey, which used 66 times the cluster points."
Steven E. Moore
--------------------------
The UNDP survey used 2,200 cluster points -- whereas the Bloomberg School of
Public Health survey used only 33 -- according to Steven Moore.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veritas Vos Liberabit
D. Spencer Hines
entire country, using only 47 cluster points."
Steven E. Moore
dapra
[...]
>
> "Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique
> rather than a detailed body count."
>
> Why is extrapolation necessary wildly inaccurate?
You should get familiar with the term of 'extrapolation'.
It is; to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from
values within an already observed interval.
dapra
So what would you do, if there are only 46 student in rural high school?
Get one form AEI to pose as a student?
dapra
I've heard of no reputable institution challenging the methodology of
John Hopkins. Please, list them here; ....
dapra
Hines, you should educate Steven E. Moore of statistics, not propagate
his misconceptions. Well, how could you do it? A motto at the end of
your posts do not substitute for education.
Tiglath
"dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:geGdnboMiIlTDavY...@comcast.com...
Gee, Dapra is trying to teach grandma to suck eggs.
He, of course, doesn't answer the question.
Why is extrapolation NECESSARILY wildly inaccurate?
Most surveys that involve a sample rather than the entire population entail
some sort of extrapolation technique. It is a method academics and
government used routinely.
Specifically, the clustered sample survey used in Iraq is being often used
in other government surveys. For example, this one:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/asylumexp.pdf
Which makes one wonder why the same government questions the methods it uses
itself.
Tiglath
If that equated that it is wildly inaccurate you would crash every time you
sneeze behind the wheel.
When you drive and sneeze or close your eyes for any other reason and look
away, you are extrapolating. You INFER the vehicle's trajectory during the
period the road is unobserved from the period when it was observed.
Now that you have shown off the fact that you can look up the definition of
"extrapolate," it is time to say something more relevant about the study.
dapra
> "dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:geGdnboMiIlTDavY...@comcast.com...
>
>>Tiglath wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>"Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique
>>>rather than a detailed body count."
>>>
>>>Why is extrapolation necessary wildly inaccurate?
>>
>>You should get familiar with the term of 'extrapolation'.
>>
>>It is; to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from
>>values within an already observed interval.
>
>
> Gee, Dapra is trying to teach grandma to suck eggs.
>
> He, of course, doesn't answer the question.
>
> Why is extrapolation NECESSARILY wildly inaccurate?
>
A survey is NOT extrapolation. You ignored the definition. I can't help
you. Believe, what you want. You are free to be stupid!
Jack Linthicum
Billzz wrote:
> It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing other
> Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
But no more of us being killed by them, right?
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I'm surprised that somebody hasn't popped in (as in the past) and commented
that Iraqis are culturally renowned for exaggerating .....
- nilita
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
>
>> "dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:geGdnboMiIlTDavY...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Tiglath wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>"Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique
>>>>rather than a detailed body count."
>>>>
>>>>Why is extrapolation necessary wildly inaccurate?
>>>
>>>You should get familiar with the term of 'extrapolation'.
>>>
>>>It is; to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from
>>>values within an already observed interval.
>>
>>
>> Gee, Dapra is trying to teach grandma to suck eggs.
>>
>> He, of course, doesn't answer the question.
>>
>> Why is extrapolation NECESSARILY wildly inaccurate?
>>
>
> A survey is NOT extrapolation. You ignored the definition. I can't help
> you. Believe, what you want. You are free to be stupid!
>
It's a freedom you show to avail yourself to abundantly since your first
post.
When did I say that a survey is synonym with extrapolation?
You don't even seem able to follow the argument, twit.
It's Tony Blair who said that this survey isn't reliable because it used
extrapolation.
Capisce, twit?
Extrapolation techniques were indeed used on the survey results to derive
the conclusion of the report.
The question is again, twit. Why is extrapolation NECESSARILY wildly
inaccurate?
And and if it is not, why it is said to be in this specific instance?
Billzz
news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
Sure, and being a closet isolationist I don't think we should have been
there in the first place. But the decision was above my pay grade (even if
I were still active, and evaluating contingency plans.) Anyway, the current
administration is exactly the same as the LBJ "guns AND butter" atttitude
towards Vietnam. A slow treadmill to oblivion. Neither enough troops to
win a war, or maintain peace. "Cut and Run" may not be the best strategy,
but it may remain the only strategy - seeing as how we are actually not
going to do anything. If we had the draft there would be increasing rioting
in the streets.
Billzz
I amend my answer to say that I did not know *the study* was one done by the
Lancet. It is a serious peer-reviewed study, and presumably done by an
"honest broker" third party, so -without actually having read it- I would
probably go with their findings. If the hullabaloo is about how many
thousands of people, well what would one expect? Many thousands are killed
in war. The anniversary of Iwo Jima is coming up and the US Marines lost
5000 in one day, and the Japanese forces many times that, so thousands after
years? My only quibble is the association of cause and effect. The people
just may be saying it was coalition forces to get compensation. Number of
civilians killed by the coalition should be less than those killed by Iraqui
insurgents - but I haven't read it.
D. Spencer Hines
crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more
cluster points."
"There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in
April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian
deaths due to the war."
"This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by
the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between
69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths -- four to five times as high as the UNDP
survey, which used 66 times the cluster points."
Steven E. Moore
--------------------------
The UNDP survey used 2,200 cluster points -- whereas the Bloomberg School of
Public Health survey used only 33 -- according to Steven Moore.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veritas Vos Liberabit
J Antero
I haven't seen the report either. But from press accounts, I don't think
they are trying to blame one group or another for the deaths. They're simply
trying to establish death rates before the war, and then during.
i2p6 west
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Apposite & Provocative.
>
> DSH
Son, you (an internet boob ignorant of statistical methods) are in opposition to highly credible people.
Johns Hopkins University
M.I.T.
The Lancet
Columbia University
John Zogby
This article you posted is trash, written for political purposes, without regard for truth.
> Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained
> Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
> 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
> 2006.
Ha Ha Ha!!! There it is.
(Hines, at this time i shall refrain from calling you a fuckin moron. You're welcome.)
William Black
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LMyZg.70352$E67.34999@clgrps13...
92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
Jack Linthicum
Not "Cut and Run" or "Stay the Course", the new buzzword is "Strategic
Redeployment" which is John Murtha's idea of a year ago reclothed in a
good Republican cloth coat.
Surreyman
William Black wrote:
>> 92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
>
> --
Anyway, as you probably realise, Moore's article is rubbish anyway.
A sample of 1,800 is not enough to survey a high school? Wouldn't that
be a 'sample' of over 100%??!!
Anyway, a sample of 1,800 gives, at worst, an SDE of +/- 2.5%.
Statistically, the projected population is irrelevant.
Learn some statistics, Hines. Stop agreeing with idiots, even if
they're from the right party.
Twit!
Virginia was enjoyed!
Surreyman
La N
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LMyZg.70352$E67.34999@clgrps13...
>>
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Billzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing
>>>> other
>>>> Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
>>>
>>> But no more of us being killed by them, right?
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised that somebody hasn't popped in (as in the past) and
>> commented that Iraqis are culturally renowned for exaggerating .....
>
> 92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
>
Okay, thank you for that. I know a reg poster who has said that if an Iraqi
gives you a number, you can divide that by 10 for the *true* number. A
death certificate is good enough for me. Damned, that's a lot of
casualties!
- nilita
J Antero
The Cretin's real strategy, given to him by Rove, is to arrange things so
that this drags out into the next President's administration. The failure
should be on somebody else, and if it's a Democrat President, all the
better.
Evangelist's are used to rearranging things to compensate for
disappointments over predictions of tribulations and "end-times".
J Antero
Baghdad Burning
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls
can mend...
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Lancet Study...
This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were
several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every
time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled
with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect
other Iraqis feel also.
It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read
the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians.
They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or
Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant
to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall
between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists
who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.
The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding
that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it
left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable
figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be
wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or
highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?
The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense
because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily
supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy
Iraqis.)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting
they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on
the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless
superpower. oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that
preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable.
And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very
few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would
have you believe).
For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking
about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be
the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being
reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any
other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a
coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after
the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far,
the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either
out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the
country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely
living in the Green Zone.
The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried
without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military
attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their
gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten
already?
We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent
death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years.
Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations,
car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids,
death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret
prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die,
is the number so far fetched?
There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since
2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around,
some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.
Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the
correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush
administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24
years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking
quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.
Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result
of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks
know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is
probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And
what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the
actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently
about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying
about dead Americans.
Soren Larsen
Virginia is developing a cruel streak.
If one wanted to attack the study, it would probably be better to ponder
how they established the 'normal' mortality rate in Iraq.
Did they trust pre invasion statistics? How and by whom was those statistics
made ?
Would everyone killed by the previous regime have been registered?
Did they count old death certificates assuming that old certificates
are as easily produced as fresh certificates?
But there is really no doubt that Bush has turned Iraq into a slaughterhouse
and
that civilians as usual are the easiest victims..
Cheers
Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
Andrew Swallow
If 92% deaths have certificates we can get figures accurate
to +/-10% by simply counting the number of death certificates
issued. No need to use surveys when a working bureaucracy exists.
Andrew Swallow
Ken Chaddock
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8SsZg.26$EQ3...@eagle.america.net...
>
>
>>Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to
>>2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to
>>2006.
> So not exactly what you'd call an unbiased observer then...
> In fact a Republican Party hack who works as a contractor for the US Army.
What you've done here Bill is to advance a Circumstantial Ad Hominem to
attack Moore's assertions...which, BTW are right on the money wrt to
how *credible* surveys are *competently* conducted...
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack
a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it
simply out of self interest, bias or partisanship. In some cases, this
fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances
(such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic
background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's
interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests
and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to
support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is
also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This
is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2.
But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims,
such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the
person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative
claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not
simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to
make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that
the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false.
For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a
light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to
say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
1. "She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is
false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."
2. "I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about
the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After
all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."
3. "Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval
spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."
4. "Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases
development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."
...Ken
Colin Campbell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:LMyZg.70352$E67.34999@clgrps13...
>>
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Billzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing
>>>> other
>>>> Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
>>>
>>> But no more of us being killed by them, right?
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised that somebody hasn't popped in (as in the past) and
>> commented that Iraqis are culturally renowned for exaggerating .....
>
>92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
Apparently they did not care about the 'cause of death' part either.
Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
age.'
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Tiglath
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:o7bgj2lf9h23qcgta...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:34:08 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:LMyZg.70352$E67.34999@clgrps13...
>>>
>>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Billzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing
>>>>> other
>>>>> Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
>>>>
>>>> But no more of us being killed by them, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that somebody hasn't popped in (as in the past) and
>>> commented that Iraqis are culturally renowned for exaggerating .....
>>
>>92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
>
> Apparently they did not care about the 'cause of death' part either.
>
Campbell the Fool puts his foot in his mouth again. See below.
> Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
> age.'
Campbell is at it again. He has obviously not read the report he
criticizes and thus in customary fashion makes a fool of himself once again.
People not wishing to do as Campbell does can check the report from the very
horse's mouth: The Lancet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltextprinter
User name: ISIRTA
Password: reallyrules
"Of the 629 deaths reported, 547 (87%) were in the post-invasion period
(March, 2003, to June, 2006) compared with 82 (13%) in the pre-invasion
period (January, 2002, to March, 2003. Most deaths (n=485; 77%) were in
males, and this was true for both periods, but more pronounced in the
pre-invasion period (57 of 82 deaths pre-invasion vs 428 of 547 deaths
post-invasion). The male-to-female ratio of post-invasion deaths was 3·4 for
all deaths, and 9·8 for violent deaths (all deaths: 144 female, 485 male;
violent death: 28 female, 274 male). In general, deaths by age group
followed the expected J-shaped demographic curve; however, by contrast, most
deaths in males were in the middle age groups.
"Of the 302 conflict-related violent deaths reported, 300 (99%) were
post-invasion. An increase in violent death rates was seen in the
post-invasion period. Analysis for trend showed that this rate for violent
deaths increased significantly in every period after the invasion (p<0·0001)
compared with the pre-invasion period.
"Of the 327 non-violent deaths that were reported, 80 (24%) occurred
pre-invasion and 247 (76%) occurred post-invasion. Non-violent mortality
rates before and after invasion are shown in table.. The mortality rates
from non-violent causes were essentially unchanged until the first 6 months
of 2006, at which point they increased by almost two deaths per 1000 people
per year; however, this increase was not significant."
jbeck
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:yazZg.10495$gx6.4377@trnddc05...
If the extrapolation was done based upon faulty numbers to begin with, then
the extrapolation will produce skewed and faulty numbers. In other
words...an extrapolation based upon sound data will usually produce a very
good result, whereas an extrapolation based upon false or incomplete data
will produce false or incomplete results.
>
>
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:o7bgj2lf9h23qcgta...@4ax.com...
> Apparently they did not care about the 'cause of death' part either.
Surreyman
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
> age.'
>
That has to be one of the most heartless comments I've ever seen on
this newsgroup.
Surreyman
William Black
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:o7bgj2lf9h23qcgta...@4ax.com...
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:LMyZg.70352$E67.34999@clgrps13...
>>>
>>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1161211087....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Billzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It seems clear, without a study, that there are more Iraquis killing
>>>>> other
>>>>> Iraquis, and if we leave, then there might be even more.
>>>>
>>>> But no more of us being killed by them, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that somebody hasn't popped in (as in the past) and
>>> commented that Iraqis are culturally renowned for exaggerating .....
>>
>>92% of claimed deaths supported by a death certificate.
>
> Apparently they did not care about the 'cause of death' part either.
>
> Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
> age.'
When the death rate goes up because there's a war going on and tension is
increased and so heart attacks increase then who's to blame?
William Black
> Or simply murder by a fellow Iraqi.
Well of course a reasonable proportion of them are killed by their fellow
Iraqis.
Who sacked all the cops?
Who lets the current bunch of cops go around killing their political
opponents?
dapra
>
> If the extrapolation was done based upon faulty numbers to begin with, then
> the extrapolation will produce skewed and faulty numbers. In other
> words...an extrapolation based upon sound data will usually produce a very
> good result, whereas an extrapolation based upon false or incomplete data
> will produce false or incomplete results.
>
Again. "In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new
data points outside a discrete set of known data points." Wikipedia.
The key word is OUTSIDE.
What you are arguing is faulty, none representative method of sampling.
It is has nothing to do with extrapolation.
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/sampling.html#clustsamp
Cluster Sampling
Cluster sampling is a sampling technique where the entire population is
divided into groups, or clusters, and a random sample of these clusters
are selected. All observations in the selected clusters are included in
the sample.
Cluster sampling is typically used when the researcher cannot get a
complete list of the members of a population they wish to study but can
get a complete list of groups or 'clusters' of the population. It is
also used when a random sample would produce a list of subjects so
widely scattered that surveying them would prove to be far too
expensive, for example, people who live in different postal districts in
the UK.
This sampling technique may well be more practical and/or economical
than simple random sampling or stratified sampling.
Example
Suppose that the Department of Agriculture wishes to investigate the use
of pesticides by farmers in England. A cluster sample could be taken by
identifying the different counties in England as clusters. A sample of
these counties (clusters) would then be chosen at random, so all farmers
in those counties selected would be included in the sample. It can be
seen here then that it is easier to visit several farmers in the same
county than it is to travel to each farm in a random sample to observe
the use of pesticides.
Colin Campbell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
>> age.'
>
>When the death rate goes up because there's a war going on and tension is
>increased and so heart attacks increase then who's to blame?
Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
was reform government record keeping?
Isn't it amazing that more death certificates were issued and filed
after we reformed the Iraqi bureaucracy? (And is it not interesting
that this sort of information was not seen as 'news' by the media?)
Besides, remember how this same magazine posted another bogus 'study'
right before the elections two years ago? Should we not be suspicious
of this?
William Black
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:50:29 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
>>> age.'
>>
>>When the death rate goes up because there's a war going on and tension is
>>increased and so heart attacks increase then who's to blame?
>
> Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
> was reform government record keeping?
You mean when you discovered all the records had been burned...
> Isn't it amazing that more death certificates were issued and filed
> after we reformed the Iraqi bureaucracy? (And is it not interesting
> that this sort of information was not seen as 'news' by the media?)
>
> Besides, remember how this same magazine posted another bogus 'study'
> right before the elections two years ago? Should we not be suspicious
> of this?
There was no bogus study.
Every study published in a peer reviewed journal seems to give the results
shown.
Every study done by US government funded organisations seems to show
different.
I'd like the US government studies put out to peer review...
J Antero
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:2hikj25v4cbhc5jc5...@4ax.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Bush administration, referred to the Johns Hopkins University study of Iraqi
civilian deaths -- published in the British medical journal the Lancet -- as
"another October surprise. . . . It's not at all credible.""
"Babbin said the number of Iraqi dead has been used before as a pre-November
jolt. "The last time they published this same report," he said of the Johns
Hopkins survey, "the same group went out and did a similar analysis two
years ago, and guess what? They put it out just before the 2004 election."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001743_pf.html>
DSH
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:2hikj25v4cbhc5jc5...@4ax.com...
D. Spencer Hines
combatants. It is not possible to judge the motives of the dead through
surveys. We could record only what households told us.” — Professor Gilbert
Burnham
----------------------------
Hilarious!
DSH
Veritas Vos Liberabit
D. Spencer Hines
<http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php>
Hilarious!
P. T. Barnum Was Right.
Bryn
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message news:2hikj25v4cbhc5jc5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:50:29 +0100, "William Black"
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Nice to know that it is now America's fault when somebody dies of 'old
>>>> age.'
>>>
>>>When the death rate goes up because there's a war going on and tension is
>>>increased and so heart attacks increase then who's to blame?
>>
>> Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
>> was reform government record keeping?
>
>You mean when you discovered all the records had been burned...
Except, mysteriously, those relating (allegedly) to George Galloway.
>
>> Isn't it amazing that more death certificates were issued and filed
>> after we reformed the Iraqi bureaucracy? (And is it not interesting
>> that this sort of information was not seen as 'news' by the media?)
>>
>> Besides, remember how this same magazine posted another bogus 'study'
>> right before the elections two years ago? Should we not be suspicious
>> of this?
>
>There was no bogus study.
>
>Every study published in a peer reviewed journal seems to give the results
>shown.
>
>Every study done by US government funded organisations seems to show
>different.
>
>I'd like the US government studies put out to peer review...
>
--
Bryn
My wife has ruined my 'elf!
I think she sat on him..
William Black
"Bryn" <Scotland-...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J1LiJuAs...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ehdi8v$o8l$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>> Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
>>> was reform government record keeping?
>>
>>You mean when you discovered all the records had been burned...
>
> Except, mysteriously, those relating (allegedly) to George Galloway.
The ones where the ink was still wet?
dapra
> "On CNBC, Jed Babbin, who was a defense undersecretary in the George H.W.
> Bush administration, referred to the Johns Hopkins University study of Iraqi
> civilian deaths -- published in the British medical journal the Lancet -- as
> "another October surprise. . . . It's not at all credible.""
>
> "Babbin said the number of Iraqi dead has been used before as a pre-November
> jolt. "The last time they published this same report," he said of the Johns
> Hopkins survey, "the same group went out and did a similar analysis two
> years ago, and guess what? They put it out just before the 2004 election."
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001743_pf.html>
>
> DSH
>
Well, if one wants to have an 'October surprise', he should know who
will be surprised, and what way they will be affected. Since the
majority of American people don't care how many innocent people we kill
in the name of 'defense' overseas, The Lancet report can not be
classified as an 'October surprise'.
dapra
Yeah! In some cases, any male between 15 - 50 years considered a
'combatant'. Shoot on sight. (Falluja)
J Antero
be worrying about what Rove will be telling his chimp to do as a political
diversion.
Billzz
news:Wiu_g.12996$Y24....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> With Iraq going bad, and even the generals starting to speak out, we
> should be worrying about what Rove will be telling his chimp to do as a
> political diversion.
I thought we all agreed that he was going to invade Canada next. Just look
at all the postings about this subject. Nothing can be a secret anymore.
Bryn
>
>"Bryn" <Scotland-...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:J1LiJuAs...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <ehdi8v$o8l$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>>>> Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
>>>> was reform government record keeping?
>>>
>>>You mean when you discovered all the records had been burned...
>>
>> Except, mysteriously, those relating (allegedly) to George Galloway.
>
>The ones where the ink was still wet?
And the paste still sticky...
Kurt Ullman
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
Just Quebec. Need a guaranteed surrender...
William Black
Anyone actually know what bhappened there?
The congressional committee issued a report that said George should be
prosecuted.
George promptly issued a statement saying something on the lines of "Bring
it on you pompous twats, I'll see you in court..."
Then it all went quiet.
How unlike the US authorities to show complete cowardice in the face of
someone articulate and with nothing to loose if he challenges them
It's as if they excluded someone from a courtroom who was on trial for his
life because they found what he was saying deeply embarassing...
Oh...
Wait a tick...
They did that with Saddam didn't they...
Erm...
Well how about if they took from free men the rights enshrined in their own
constitution because The President Wabnts It So?
Oh, they just did that as well didn't they...
What will they do when someone stands up in one of their kangaroo courts and
says "I refuse to recognise this court. I demand a full hearing in a proper
court, do your worst, you are no better than bandits."
Tiglath
> Idiot.
>
>
It's the best reply to most of Colin Campbell's posts.
Campbell makes NoGall look like a Nobel laureate.
He is the guy who disputed that given two artillery shells of the same type
but different calibers, the one with the largest caliber has more firepower.
And he is a grunt in our army, allegedly.
He is the guy who assured us that Bush had met with the family of every
fallen service man or woman killed in the GOT.
He also disputed that one of the reasons Col. Swinton invented the tank was
to put artillery on wheels, so to speak.
And apparently he is a tank grunt.
Though IDIOT first and foremost.
Tiglath
> jbeck wrote:
>>
>> If the extrapolation was done based upon faulty numbers to begin with,
>> then the extrapolation will produce skewed and faulty numbers. In other
>> words...an extrapolation based upon sound data will usually produce a
>> very good result, whereas an extrapolation based upon false or incomplete
>> data will produce false or incomplete results.
>>
>
> Again. "In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new
> data points outside a discrete set of known data points." Wikipedia. The
> key word is OUTSIDE.
>
> What you are arguing is faulty,
Where is the fault in his argument, Einstein?
This fellow keeps repeating the definition of "extrapolation" and thinking
he is actually correcting someone, and he still can't follow what it is
actually being said.
>
> Cluster Sampling
>
> Cluster sampling is a sampling technique where the entire population is
> divided into groups, or clusters, and a random sample of these clusters
> are selected. All observations in the selected clusters are included in
> the sample.
>
> Cluster sampling is typically used when the researcher cannot get a
> complete list of the members of a population they wish to study but can
> get a complete list of groups or 'clusters' of the population. It is also
> used when a random sample would produce a list of subjects so widely
> scattered that surveying them would prove to be far too expensive, for
> example, people who live in different postal districts in the UK.
>
> This sampling technique may well be more practical and/or economical than
> simple random sampling or stratified sampling.
>
> Example
> Suppose that the Department of Agriculture wishes to investigate the use
> of pesticides by farmers in England. A cluster sample could be taken by
> identifying the different counties in England as clusters. A sample of
> these counties (clusters) would then be chosen at random, so all farmers
> in those counties selected would be included in the sample. It can be seen
> here then that it is easier to visit several farmers in the same county
> than it is to travel to each farm in a random sample to observe the use of
> pesticides.
AND THEN
from the sample they most probably EXTRAPOLATE the numbers for the whole
country.
As the poster you wrongly criticized told you. The sample needs to be large
enough to be representative of a general case arrived at by extrapolation.
Here is one of a myriad studies where extrapolation was based on cluster
sampling.
Is this guy thick or what?
Tiglath
> "On CNBC, Jed Babbin, who was a defense undersecretary in the George H.W.
> Bush administration, referred to the Johns Hopkins University study of
> Iraqi civilian deaths -- published in the British medical journal the
> Lancet -- as "another October surprise. . . . It's not at all credible.""
>
> "Babbin said the number of Iraqi dead has been used before as a
> pre-November jolt. "The last time they published this same report," he
> said of the Johns Hopkins survey, "the same group went out and did a
> similar analysis two years ago, and guess what? They put it out just
> before the 2004 election."
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001743_pf.html>
>
> DSH
Republicans everywhere are preparing themselves for a disaster next month.
It will be the first disaster they are prepared for.
But what if EVEN with shit up this high, a majority of Americans STILL
refuse to get rid of the these lemons?
We should be prepared for that disaster too.
J Antero
Personally, I have no problem with recognizing we're in the social-political
Twilight Zone, and have been ever since the Christian fundamentalists became
politically active.
I'm going to make my song writer debut:
(sung to: Stealers Wheels - "stuck in the middle with you")
Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Faggots to the left of me,
Jesus creeps to the right, here I am,
Stuck paying taxes with you.
J Antero
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-CEA8D...@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
There's good skiing around Calgary.
Tiglath
> More Grist For The Mill...
>
> <http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php>
>
> Hilarious!
>
> P. T. Barnum Was Right.
>
> DSH
Burnham puts the pajama man and other pogues in their place.
He tirelessly demolishes the witty comparison after witty comparison.
Like...
Pajamaman:
"Your study attributes a third or more than 200,000 would have died in air
raids. That is more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined"
Burnham:
"Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to airstrikes, not 200,000."
It is obvious that Pajamaman has not read or inwardly digested the report.
Shouldn't he in turn explain where he got the 200,000 figure from?
Vast arrays of uninformed and malicious pogues are distorting and misquoting
the report for partisan purposes. Burnham makes easy work or them, as
anyone who conscientiously reads the report can.
The White House dismissal of the report is also unsupported and baseless,
and no better than the pogues around here who post, "Wrong" but aren't able
to explain why.
Smart Alecs are quick to come up with witty comparisons like Pajamaman's
comparison of the mortality rate of Hungary with Iraq's, ignorant of the
importance of the population structure, especially the percentage of old
people in the population, of which Hungary has many and Iraq few. Burham
skewers Pajamaman with that one repeatedly. Well done.
Again Pajamaman makes a fool of himself:
Pajamaman: "According to this report 14% of the 655,000 people died as a
result of suicide bombers"
Burnham: "We did not report on suicide bombers."
This is a gem.
First look at the comment by what must probably be a hawkish smart alec"
"Note that Burnham treats the Civil War question as if the figures were for
a single battle rather than the entire conflict, and how he bats away the
suicide bomber question without so much as attempting to explain why it was
mistaken. Not a very credible performance..." -- Mark Coffey.
The question by Pajamaman
"Historical comparisons might be helpful here. 650,000 violent deaths is
about 150,000 more than the number of soldiers who died (violently and by
disease) during the American Civil War, a conflict which involved a
population larger than Iraq's, and lasted a year than the current conflict
has been going on. There is nothing in Iraq that looks like Shiloh,
Antietam, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, etc. What makes you believe that Iraq is
deadlier than the American Civil War?
Burham's answer:
"What we are reporting is cumulative deaths over a 40 month period
throughout an area of 26.1 million, not a 1-2 day battle field event."
That is the right short answer. The Civil War killing took place in
battles. The study doesn't concern battles.
The question is really dumb. Pajamaman compares soldier casualties that
occurred in infrequent but deadly open battles in single locations, with
CIVILIAN casualties occurring frequently in many areas simultaneously,
killing tens of scores at a time. Pears and apples.
News of the fraction of killed reported every week, get little attention,
and after 40 months it is hardly news. Half that number killed in a single
battle would be sensational news and cause a completely different
perception.
Just compared the reaction to the 3000 killed on 9/11 and the reaction of
the almost 3000 killed in Iraq over three years. Same figure, roughly,
completely different reaction.
Ignorant people trust their gut feelings before they trust hard numbers.
Kurt Ullman
"J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote:
Well there you go.. yet another reason.
"I leave my entire estate of ten million dollars to the people of
Calgary so they can afford to move somewhere decent!"
The Frantics.. Last Will and Temperament
Hal
...So that is what you have to say about America's allies who are
fighting and dying in Afghanistan. That's what you think of the 22nd
Regiment among others, some of whom are to be deployed to that same
little piece of hell early in the new year.
Hamid Karzai made a much more intelligent and far less racist comment,
when he said to the people and soldiers from Quebec "Merci mille fois"
(look him up, he's in the know.)
You owe these people (and a whole lot of others) an apology.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/07/31/1712060-cp.html
La N
"Hal" <Spam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161470558.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Once again ... "To Absent Friends" ..... it is heartbreaking to see these
all too frequent funerals on television.
- nilita
Billzz
Umm, I think that was humour. One cannot read it seriously.
Colin Campbell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Maybe it is our fault because one of the first things we did in Iraq
>> was reform government record keeping?
>
>You mean when you discovered all the records had been burned...
No. And you know that is not what I meant. We got the Iraqi
government bureaucracy function. This meant that the 'invisible'
actions of government (auto registration, birth/death certificates,
permits, utilities upkeep, etc.) started functioning in at least a
semi-competent manner.
And with an improvement in government record keeping of public
documents - would you be surprised to find more death certificates
being completed and filed?
>
>> Isn't it amazing that more death certificates were issued and filed
>> after we reformed the Iraqi bureaucracy? (And is it not interesting
>> that this sort of information was not seen as 'news' by the media?)
>>
>> Besides, remember how this same magazine posted another bogus 'study'
>> right before the elections two years ago? Should we not be suspicious
>> of this?
>
>There was no bogus study.
Very bogus. In fact I was in Iraq at the time and we all spotted how
the authors made sure that they got the results they wanted. (Hint:
they did not select the cities in order to get a representative sample
- they selected cities that had above-average levels of violence.
>
>Every study published in a peer reviewed journal seems to give the results
>shown.
Can you name one researcher who was able to replicate the findings of
the original Lancet study?
>
>Every study done by US government funded organisations seems to show
>different.
And these can be verified.
>
>I'd like the US government studies put out to peer review...
BTW - exactly who peer-reviewed the Lancet study? Just about
everybody who served in Iraq spotted how the authors got the results
they wanted - how come none of the 'peer-reviewers' were able to?
Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
they are now.
Hal
I have no doubt he thought himself funny. I can't but help laugh at him
as well. Let him explain his joke so all can enjoy his fractional wit.
Hal
moving as well. The emotions of their friends as they send them on
their last trip home are palpable. Along with the terrible sense of
loss, they also project a pride in themselves and their fallen friends,
and their actions and accomplishments, and for a moment we get to share
that with them. I'm glad our media our alowed to show them.
Hal
Kurt Ullman
"Hal" <Spam...@gmail.com> wrote:
You were toilet trained at gun point weren't you.
William Black
> Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
> they are now.
You have forgotten to take your meds today.
The world is not out to get you.
You did it to yourselves...
Surreyman
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
> > Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
> they are now.
>
Have you now totally flipped?
What the xxxxxxxx interest has The Lancet in international politics?
Good grief ..................
Surreyman
William Black
"Surreyman" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1161514822....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The paranoia is getting really bad in US military circles now that bthe boys
at Foggy Bottom have openly come out and said 'Do a deal'.
Tiglath
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:cmflj219pfq5tlo9d...@4ax.com...
>
> the authors made sure that they got the results they wanted. (Hint:
> they did not select the cities in order to get a representative sample
> - they selected cities that had above-average levels of violence.
>
How can Campbell possibly know that, unless he was free to follow the
surveyors around the country?
>>
>>Every study published in a peer reviewed journal seems to give the results
>>shown.
>
> Can you name one researcher who was able to replicate the findings of
> the original Lancet study?
>
That's exactly what Campbell and other critics must find, someone who has
conducted a study as extensive or more extensive than that of the Lancet and
has obtained lower figures. These hawks just can't understand that the
Lancet estimate is the best we've got after a diet of underestimates and
manipulated numbers from biased parties.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> That's exactly what Campbell and other critics must find, someone who has
> conducted a study as extensive or more extensive than that of the Lancet and
> has obtained lower figures. These hawks just can't understand that the
> Lancet estimate is the best we've got after a diet of underestimates and
> manipulated numbers from biased parties.
The one thing the survey did show was that death certificates
were being issued. Surveys are not needed, figures accurate
to +/- 10% can be obtained by simply counting the death
certificates issued since the invasion.
Andrew Swallow
p.s. What makes you think that a large number of Iraqi deaths
is bad news? The US public may think this means their troops
are working hard.
Colin Campbell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message news:cmflj219pfq5tlo9d...@4ax.com...
>
>> Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
>> they are now.
>
>You have forgotten to take your meds today.
Gee, two bogus studies. Both by the same author. Both published by
the same magazine. Both published immediately prior to a US election.
Are you that gullible?
Colin Campbell
It appears that Tiggy is again demonstrating his inability to retain
knowledge.
Lets see:
The 'Iraq body count' claims ~49,000 Iraqi casualties (including enemy
and Iraqi army/police dead.)
The Brookings institution reports ~62,000.
The Los Angeles Times - !50,000.
Another thing to think about is _who_ is killing the Iraqi civilians.
(Something that you should catch on to just by watching the 'explosion
of the day' that pretends to be news coverage of the war.
Tiglath
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:PfKdnZjfZsS...@bt.com...
The U.S. public is not of one mind on this. It consists mainly of wobbly,
fickle hearts that go with the wind; at the moment some 64% think the whole
affair was a bad idea. The unshakable 35% are indeed a curious lot, what
do they need to happen before they get in touch with reality? It beats me.
A large number of Iraqi deaths will not be in vain if they can be used in an
election year to dethrone the fuck-ups we have at the top.
Tiglath
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:25:00 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>in
>>message news:cmflj219pfq5tlo9d...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
>>> they are now.
>>
>>You have forgotten to take your meds today.
>
> Gee, two bogus studies. Both by the same author. Both published by
> the same magazine. Both published immediately prior to a US election.
> Are you that gullible?
Why is it so bad to recap the Iraqi casualties in an election years?
It's a valid subject about which voters should be clear for it's an
important war metric.
Were the Democrats in power, the same people who criticize the report would
ask for one, as a moral duty to inform the voters.
Hypocrisy is one of the symptoms of partisan rot, and Campbell is a
magnificent exemplar of it.
Tiglath
What Campbell forgets to say, of course, is why his sources are accurate and
the Lancet isn't.
The answer is of course that he likes the lower figures, whoever might be
producing them, and the truth be damned, but it would be refreshing to hear
from him a reasoned explanation of WHY those counts are more reliable than
that of the Lancet.
Don't hold your breath, folks.
ray o'hara
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a0e0b$4536d258$9440b19b$30...@STARBAND.NET...
> I amend my answer to say that I did not know *the study* was one done by
the
> Lancet. It is a serious peer-reviewed study, and presumably done by an
> "honest broker" third party, so -without actually having read it- I would
> probably go with their findings. If the hullabaloo is about how many
> thousands of people, well what would one expect? Many thousands are
killed
> in war. The anniversary of Iwo Jima is coming up and the US Marines lost
> 5000 in one day, and the Japanese forces many times that, so thousands
after
> years? My only quibble is the association of cause and effect. The people
> just may be saying it was coalition forces to get compensation. Number of
> civilians killed by the coalition should be less than those killed by
Iraqui
> insurgents - but I haven't read it.
>
>
johns hopkins is one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
they conducted a survey using the accepted standards.
all you have is you and your ilk don't like the results.
the study is available here
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604174412
click on science direct link.
ray o'hara
it.
>
> I haven't seen the report either. But from press accounts, I don't think
> they are trying to blame one group or another for the deaths. They're
simply
> trying to establish death rates before the war, and then during.
Hal
Nope, he's just another jerk. Here he slags two countries, and a
distinct cultural and linguistic group. Canada had been involved with
Afghanistan since October 2001 when he had his dump:
"Canada, Germany. Hard to tell the difference between the Iilly-livered
any more. Did he end up in Quebec getting further messed up by having
to deal
with French Canadians, losers times two. "
Kurt Ullman, March 1 2003, in thread: The Real UnPatriotic Americans
Hal
Normally I wouldn't comment, but without some improvement in your
punctuation, your post is gibberish. That's not good if you were
attempting to communicate. My guess is a comma after the word 'point',
and replacing the period with a question mark. Or you chose to produce
gibberish, as a personal demonstration of the cowardice and xenophobia
you exhibit in your general demeanour. Or you're just an ignorant fool
who didn't know any better. What did you think you meant?
Billzz
I know that I should not step in and say anything here, but I think I should
explain what I see as "a failure to communicate."
Herr Kurt was adding a humorous comment to the small addition of , something
like - who shall the Bush administration attack next? And someone (maybe
me) said Canada because the majority of the posts seem to be entitled "US to
Invade Canada Next?" He said Quebec because, well nevermind. It is an
example of a cynical, but humorous retort.
I lived in Germany and know that there is a strain of German humor (the
Berliners are the best - see "Cabaret") that is wicked funny and wicked
cynical.
I was at a NATO symposium where they were talking about reservists, and one
country representitive said they used the Swiss model, with all adult males
being issued an army rifle. Question from the audience was, "how do you
know they are qualified?" and behind me were two German officers (and I am
sure that they did not know that I understood) when one said to the other,
"Wir gehen auf die Jagt, am Wocheende." which means (we go hunting, on
weekends.) This is pure German humor. It is funny, and it is biting.
So you should not take anything that has been said here seriously.
Maybe something like, "My father was a pacifist, and would *never* use a
gun. Now the whip on the other hand....."
Time for a funny. "I was toilet trained by putting a picture of (fill in
the blank) in front of me. I went right away. And for weeks!"
It's a short life. Better to be humorous about these things. We don't get
to actually do anything about these things anyway.
Kurt Ullman
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
> I know that I should not step in and say anything here, but I think I should
> explain what I see as "a failure to communicate."
>
> Herr Kurt was adding a humorous comment to the small addition of , something
> like - who shall the Bush administration attack next? And someone (maybe
> me) said Canada because the majority of the posts seem to be entitled "US to
> Invade Canada Next?" He said Quebec because, well nevermind. It is an
> example of a cynical, but humorous retort.
Actually it was not humourous, supposed to be, but wasn't . I was
mainly picking on the sterotype and shouldn't have. It was not a shot at
the soldiers, but rather the history of the civilian and politicians who
do not always live up the quality of their troops.
Surreyman
Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >message news:cmflj219pfq5tlo9d...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Nope the Lancet was attempting to influence the US elections - just as
> >> they are now.
> >
> >You have forgotten to take your meds today.
>
> Gee, two bogus studies. Both by the same author. Both published by
> the same magazine. Both published immediately prior to a US election.
> Are you that gullible?
>
The Lancet is a high level MEDICAL internationally renowned
professional journal, you stupid xxxxxxx.
Is your Journal of the American Medical Association 'taking sides' over
Iraq??!!
Surreyman
Peter Skelton
<s>
No, it was typical of what comes out of the south end of a
northbound gelding.
Peter Skelton
La N
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b6apj2dh8p8k06b9i...@4ax.com...
I guess I have to advise our neighbours of the South of our cultural
differences especially when it comes to wartime. We canucks are very
sensitive to *some* of our USAian friends critiquing our country -
particularly our soldiers - during a time of war that many - if not most -
of my countrymen wonder what we are doing in, particular as it is in support
of the very USAian Administration that is extremely un-popular up here.
At better times (i.e. times of peace), x-border humour is much welcomed and
giggled at and practiced on both sides. Hey, we Canadians are even good at
self-effacing humour - we poke fun at ourselves all the time, but our
collective skin is a little raw lately from watching so many military
funerals.
- nilita
Tiglath
Campbell likes to parrot the White House and can't do that well either.
They just don't like the figures, and anything they don't like must not be
right.
Amusingly, they are incapable of saying why in a coherent manner that will
withstand the most obvious rebuttal.
The best they can do, as Blair did, is distort and misrepresent what the
report says.
They are people under siege eating babies and pets and drinking their urine.
Hal
No, he used one of his standard vitriolic comments that he usually
directs at France, only this time aimed at Quebecers. Elsewhere in this
thread I pointed out his slagging Canadians as "lilly-livered", and
singling out "French Canadians" as "losers times two".
Look how he defends his asinine comment "Just Quebec. Need a
guaranteed surrender...":
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Actually it was not humorous, supposed to be, but wasn't . I was
mainly picking on the sterotype and shouldn't have. It was not a shot
at
the soldiers, but rather the history of the civilian and politicians
who
do not always live up the quality of their troops."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL So the soldiers are fine, it's their friends and families, the
other 7 1/2 million people, their ancestors and their political
leadership he has a problem with, based on scratching his ass before he
started to type.
In all fairness to him, I should also quote completely his first
response to me, posted before his more carefully thought out reply
above:
"you were toilet trained at gun point weren't you."
Doesn't he just ooze credibility?
>He said Quebec because, well nevermind. <snip>
I mind
Hal
Hal
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <d5774$453c39fb$9440b19b$31...@STARBAND.NET>,
> "Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I know that I should not step in and say anything here, but I think I should
> > explain what I see as "a failure to communicate."
> >
> > Herr Kurt was adding a humorous comment to the small addition of , something
> > like - who shall the Bush administration attack next? And someone (maybe
> > me) said Canada because the majority of the posts seem to be entitled "US to
> > Invade Canada Next?" He said Quebec because, well nevermind. It is an
> > example of a cynical, but humorous retort.
>
> Actually it was not humourous, supposed to be, but wasn't . I was
> mainly picking on the sterotype
What is this Quebec "surrender" stereotype that you refer to? Care to
give some references? Oh, you accidentally snipped your original
comment out. Here is your complete quote :
"Just Quebec. Need a guaranteed surrender..."
> and shouldn't have. It was not a shot at
> the soldiers, but rather the history of the civilian and politicians who
> do not always live up the quality of their troops.
Want to try to reconcile your remarks about history to reality?
Quebec's military history needs little defence against ignorant,
uneducated louts like yourself, not do the records of its citizenry or
its leaders. Care to point out the basis for your *guaranteed
surrender* statement?
Quebecers beat the Americans soundly in their part against the American
invasions.
Who was in the first world war first, Quebecers or Americans?
How about the second world war?
How about the military record of Quebecers in Korea?
How about the Quebecers who served in Viet Nam (I have known two)?
Got a problem with the Quebec portion of Canada's commitment and
contributions to UN Peacekeeping and NATO?
Got a problem with all of the French Canadians involved in the above,
and their friends, families and elected officials?
I would only think higher of your post if I thought it was mockery. But
you're not bright enough for that, so it's just pathetic damage
control. You don't have a clue about what your talking about, and
prefer bravado to honesty. You need to learn to take responsibility for
your words.
Was the part where you appeared to be trying to say that I was toilet
trained at gun point also just misunderstood humour? I can only imagine
a cowardly hypocrite making such a claim.
Hal
parade.
Hal
Kurt Ullman
"Hal" <Spam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is this Quebec "surrender" stereotype that you refer to? Care to
> give some references? Oh, you accidentally snipped your original
> comment out. Here is your complete quote :
> "Just Quebec. Need a guaranteed surrender..."
The problem was a lack of specificity on my part. The original
statement was that the US should invade Canada to take the heat off. In
order to that it would need a sure win. The statement was a play on the
French stereotype to surrender, Quebec being the French part of Canada.
It was a lousy joke delivered even worse since it took this long for me
to figure out that I was still talking France (the statement about
politicians not always standing up to the caliber of the troops) and
you, quite logically, focused on what I said about Quebec as opposed to
what I was trying to say.
While I still have a dim view of French politicians in general, it
was very bad idea to paint Quebecers with the same brush. Every once in
awhile (although many would argue the once in a while part) I get too
cute for my own good and it comes back on me.
Hal
Not in this case Nilita. It is too bad that so many Canadians (and
Americans) can't differentiate between Afghanistan and Iraq. I fully
support Canada's men and women and mission in Afghanistan. At its core
it is one of aid and reconstruction (nothing to do with Haliburton or
other similar US initiatives), supported by those Canadians who
volunteer, prepared to fight to support the rights of people elsewhere.
We have been doing this kind of thing for a half a century, and it is
worth both doing and bragging about. NATO had the rug pulled out from
under when the US decided to redirect all of its efforts at Iraq, but
the mission is still valid, and (I hope) still achievable.
I just don't easily tolerate abysmally ignorant fools like kurt
insulting my countrymen.
Hal
La N
I've come to know several canadian servicemen who have returned from
Afghanistan, and *they* certainly believe in the mission.
Unfortunately, like you, I've known one or two dumbass USAians who have
unjustly critiqued our country and our soldiers at this critical time in our
respective histories. Maybe they're jaded by all the goading *they* get
from people from other nations. I dunno ...
Grain of saslt .. and all that ...
- nilita