I was pleased to see that someone decided to spend the time and energy to scientifically debunk the politically motivated statistical study on deaths in Iraq since the invasion published by the Lancet just days before the 2004 election.
First of all, it is important that these charlatans be exposed for the scientific hacks they are. Dr. Les Brown, an epidemiologist, headed the 2004 study which estimated 100,000 or more excess Iraqis had died as a result of our invasion and occupation. What should have been the tip off to the study’s uselessness was the contention that “most of the excess deaths” were the result of violence and that “80% of those deaths were the result of air strikes.”
Unless the US was carrying on a massive bombing campaign that killed tens of thousands of civilians without the media, the UN, the Iraqis themselves, or anyone else knowing anything about it, that statement was either a laughable corruption of statistics or a bald faced lie.
And given this thorough destruction of the study by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University, the latter explanation may be the most logical.
Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.†Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors “refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).†The researchers did release some high-level summary data in highly aggregated form (see here), but they released neither the detailed interviewee-level data nor the programming code that would be necessary to replicate their results.
Failing to provide the detailed interviewee-level data and the programming code so that colleagues could duplicate their results thus validating the study is a clear indication that Brown and his crew could have cared less if the study was accurate or even scientifically useful. It is an open question whether they knew the study was flawed which would make their sin a mortal one for a scientist, a transgression that would get you fired from any respectable scientific institution in the world and leave your career in tatters.
The study was a political statement – propaganda in service to people that Brown, whose work was most praiseworthy in Rwanda, should have recognized as kin to the genocidal maniacs who hacked 800,000 tribesmen to death in the 1990’s. The beheaders and mass murderers that we are fighting in Iraq were aided by this study. And Brown and his team should be abjectly ashamed of themselves for knowingly giving them assistance and comfort.
This ethical transgression by Brown should finish his career. Instead, don’t be surprised if he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.
And what of the Lancet? Publishing the study 5 days before the presidential election and then claiming that the publication date was only a coincidence exposes them as frauds and liars. One of the oldest and most respected medical journals on the planet was put in service of a partisan political agenda and in a most cowardly manner, denied it’s motives were anything except pure as the driven snow.
Outrageous.
As we have seen with the Bush Administration, politically motivated science put in service to a specific agenda is extraordinarily damaging. For the Bushies, who have no respect for science in my opinion and see it as a tool to be used to advance their political agenda, everything from the public health to climate change was affected by their cooking the books. But Brown and The Lancet went the Bush Administration one better; they put themselves and their scientific expertise at the disposal of the enemies of civilization. They allowed their animus toward the war, or Bush, or the United States to blind them to the fact that by hurting America’s cause they were helping those who, if given the chance, would just as soon put a bullet in their brains as give them the time of day. It makes no sense.
In the end, this is an esoteric argument. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, most of them innocent women and children. And while it’s true that insurgents and terrorists use civilians as human shields, it is also true that no study, no argument can be made to really defend or obscure the fact that for many Iraqis, this war has been a personal tragedy beyond their ability to bear. Loved ones who have died in crossfire or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when a car bomb went off, or simply because a mistake was made by American forces are lost forever. They cannot be brought back by bogus studies or “supporting the troops” or “winning through to victory” or political posturing here at home. Dead is dead. And we don’t need cooked statistics published by ethically challenged journals to tell us of the immense pain and human toll our war of choice is costing the Iraqi people.
Iraq is an open wound, bleeding as a result of our ministrations. Even though the surge is showing some signs of success in some areas – less so in others, the political differences that divide the country are a chasm that no one seems willing or able to bridge. Until the Iraqis decide they wish to live together in peace, the body count will continue to rise. The only question is will more die if we leave than if we stay.
And no one knows the answer – no one has any answers that would allow us the luxury of a quick exit.
UPDATE
Vindication for Shannon Love of Chicago Boyz whose series of posts on the study back in 2004 I relied on for my own piece questioning the study.
Kane shows that if the Falluja cluster is included in the statistical calculations, the confidence interval dips below zero, which is a big no-no. Since the study’s raw data remain a closely guarded secret, Kane cannot be absolutely certain that the inclusion of the Falluja cluster renders the study mathematically invalid…
…but that’s the way to bet.
In science, replication is the iron test. I find it revealing that no other source or study has come close to replicating the original study. All my original points still stand.
Ah, vindication is sweet.
5:30 pm
Wow.
You said something I agree with.
this war is a clusterf**k.
and no amount of staying there will fix it.
if only the wingnuts on this site would sign up and fight for it.
5:32 pm
Watch the language, moron. You wanna be pig, go leave your filth on a lefty site.
6:05 pm
Iraq is an open wound, bleeding as a result of our ministrations.
In one sense you are correct but I would submit that during all American wars, from the revolution onward, many honest and reasonable people have made that same assessment. History has judged them in the main to have been wrong.
History is ugly and slow when observed in real time. The day-to-day realities of conflicts seem to horrible and to unending to ever lead to victory. By contrast, the victories of the past seem easy and foreordained when viewed in hindsight. We compress months and years of struggle into a few brief major events. We wonder why current events do not seem to progress in the same way.
Until the Iraqis decide they wish to live together in peace, the body count will continue to rise.
I would point out that people said the same thing 5 years into the de facto occupation of the Kurdish zone. The Kurds were judged to fractious and to much under assault by external actors to ever come to an accord. Today, the zone is largely peaceful and self-managing.
The Iraqi may not trust each other but it is their sovereign will as express through their honestly elected representatives that we stay and assist them. Nothing in the region’s history suggest our leaving will improve things.
I for one do not wish another Cambodia on our collective conscience.
7:36 pm
Shannon,
It sounds like you are arguing that we are unable to make judgements about the course of events as they happen, because history is always, and necessarily uglier when you are living through it. But what to do then? Suspend all attempts to understand and just sit back and follow the leader? I dont see much value to this argument, for it is certainly incumbent upon us to make the best decisions that we can in real time.
“The Kurds were judged to fractious and to much under assault by external actors to ever come to an accord.”
i dont recall anyone saying that. No doubt there has always been a competition, sometimes violent, between the two factions, and they have subsumed that for now. But it wasnt because of “external actors”, and the entente that they have achieved seems to be based on the one point of agreement that they share – that the goal should be independence.
“I for one do not wish another Cambodia on our collective conscience.”
Huh? In what sense is Cambodia on our “collective conscience”? I hope you are not making allusion to the absurd charge that one hears from time to time, that somehow America is responsible for that. To remind you, briefly, America was never in Cambodia, except for a few months when Nixon invaded the border provinces. The notion that our withdrawl from Vietnam enabled, or had anything to do with what happened in Cambodia is beyond ridiculous. Unless you believe that if we had maintained 500,000 troops in Vietnam for an additional 6 or 7 years from when they started to withdraw, and then we dropped whatever we were doing in Vietnam and moved them into Cambodia and then tried to stop the KR…is that your point?
Sorry if I misunderstand you. Perhaps you were just making allusion to the more reasonable point that the events in Cambodia were set in motion by our overthrowing of their traditional government and replacing it with the military dictatorship of Lon Nol, which provoked all manner of resistance, leading to the triumph of the most insane faction etc…. Was that you point? And if so, what is the lesson of that?
8:52 pm
The Lancet study on Iraq war deaths sounds like the original hockey-stick paper on global warming. I.e., refusal to allow others to see the data used in the study, and the inability of peers to replicate the results.
9:10 pm
Tano,
It sounds like you are arguing that we are unable to make judgements about the course of events as they happen…
That’s not my main point although historically it is true more often than not. Major events in wars are routinely misunderstood at the time they occur by both the general public and policy makers. For example, the common perception about the Tet offensive was that it showed that the Viet Cong were militarily powerful, resilient to the point of being nigh indestructible and widely popular in South Vietnam. Not until. People who argued otherwise were mocked by the majority. Not until the end of the Cold War did we learn that the Tet Offensive destroyed the Viet Cong, that the popular uprising they planned on never materialized and that they never played a significant role in the war again. WWII is suffused with even more examples.
My main point, however, was that we tend to psychologically compress the past. We forget that people who lived through the events thought they would never end. Its the difference between watching a 30 minute edited show about some one’s week and being the shmoe that actually follows them around with a camera for 7 days.
i dont recall anyone saying that…
In the mid-90’s the Kurds experienced extensive internal discord. Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran all sponsored different groups. Saddam sponsored one group that came rather close to taking over the region by armed force. Had one looked at the situation then, one could have easily concluded that the Kurds would never be able to work together. Now days, the Kurdish zones are considered a roaring success.
...America was never in Cambodia…
We had boots on the ground for only a short time but our support for non-communist forces in the country dates back to the 1950’s. The termination of support for non-communist forces in 73-74 lead to a communist victory in 1975. The communist were supported fully by China whereas anti-communist forces had nothing but their own resources to rely on. They were overwhelmed.
I think the parallel exact. Iraq faces both external division and attack from external actors. If we abandon them the most likely outcome will be a brutal civil war with Sunnis supported by Sunni nations and Shia supported by Iran.
We threw the people of Indochina because we did not understand the nature of the conflict as it was happening.
9:54 pm
if only the wingnuts on this site would sign up and fight for it.
Heh. Don’t you folks ever get tired of that argument? It’s as old as it is intellectually dishonest.
11:40 pm
Tano,
We did venture into Cambodia. It was part of our desire to finally shut down the Ho-Chi-Minh trail. When we left the South Vietnamese high and dry the whole of SEA went into the kitty litter box. Cambodia being only the most bloody outcome.
12:13 am
The majority of Iraqis are peaceful who are only worried about their families safety and future. The don’t want to “fight”. The minority of blood thirsty terrorists and insurgents are the ones terrorizing the majority.
But noone can deny that Iraqis opened their arms to Democracy by 12 million strong. Did they have unrealistic expectations of Democracy being a magic wand? Yes.
al-Qaeda threatened Iraqis with BEHEADING if they voted and were caught with ink on their fingers! How did 12 million Iraqis respond?
Do these people look like they want to pick up an AK47 and “fight”? No, but did they “fight” for their freedom by showing up to vote under threat of death? YES
The “Peace Liberls” that want to abandon these innocent Iraqis to Genocide by the terrorists makes me sick.
http://blog.espen.net/blog2/blogs/media/story.children.vote.jpg
http://www.comcast.net/data/br/2005/12/13/br-20580.jpg
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/voteiniraq.jpg
Is Iraq getting better and is the new security strategy working? Yes. Do the majority of Iraqis apprecaite our American Soldier’s sacrifices? Yes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r3FEtGdDAGc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bULtkhXciSo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6kWVgrRR8ZU
Why did ABC News do this story once and never follow up about all the successes the Surge has already seen?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5m0q1MlQOw
Did you know Iraq has Boy Scouts? Did you know with the new security strategy Iraqi Boys were able to have their first Jamboree?
Even though our treasonous media ignored the U.S. Military was there to film it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dH80g_Mkin0
12:17 am
Did you know that Baghdad’s 40 year old amusement park was able to re-open thanks to the Security Strategy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qHs-B2ZunMc
I have no problem with the media reporting the negatives, but why does the majority of the media ignore these positive stories?
10:51 am
The easiest way to dubunk the study is to ask those who support the 100K number to
1. explain the basics of the study, and how they come up with the 100K number.
2. why they are still relying on a number that is several years old. Have no Iraqi civilians died over the past few years?
The whole thing is a farce, and, it is a shame that those at the Lancet have not come forward and said “look, you morons who are putting out this 100K number, that is NOT what we said. We said it could be between 8K and 198K, based on a statistical study. Do you morons understand what a statistical study actually is?” Alas, they haven’t. I supposed they like to be adored by unhinged moonbats.
Debunking it is a waste of time, because those on the Left will support it regardless of facts and science, much like their belief in global warming as caused by Man, that abortion on demand reducies abortion on demand, welfare builds self esteem, self esteem is more important then capabilities, training, and competence, etc, and so on.
11:28 am
Thursday Lunchtime Links…
I still cannot understand why Putin is trying to provoke, and alienate, the West. What’s in it for him? Internal politics? We mean them no harm. Quit washing your clothes. It’s bad for Gaia.For the children. Internet censorship proposed. h/y, Insty.W…
2:16 pm
“The only question is will more die if we leave than if we stay.”
Actually, I’ve got another question. Where is my ROI for this war? Whether it be cheaper gas or, well.. mostly just cheaper gas, I want it now. I don’t want it 30 years from now when history vindicates George W. Bush. That’s crap. With enough effort, I figured it’d be possible to turn money and corpses into AT LEAST a dollar savings per gallon. Probably more than that if we get some of the good scientists working on it. Not these number fudging “100k dead” quacks. The current rate of return is disappointing.
2:21 pm
Shannon & others who argue that the Viet Cong was defeated during the Tet offensive (Jan ‘68) might want to look at casualty figures from that war more closely:
Year U.S. deaths
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
While I’m aware that not all of the casualties were inflicted by the Viet Cong, you must admit that for a defeated enemy they still packed quite a punch.
2:51 pm
Rick,
You had me until you accused these scientists of being “traitors” – however politically motivated this report was and however wrong their methodology may have been.
It’s my (albeit lacking) understanding that treason involves “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.” (Merriam Webster)
Now if to you, “treason” involves opposing a war begun on dubious grounds, then that’s your perogative, but I wouldn’t expect much support except from right wing wackos. But I fail to see the connection between publishing this report and even aiding the enemy. I’m not too bright, someone spell it out for me explicitly, logically please.
If they used bad science to push a political agenda, then the saner segments of society will eventually realize that these guys are quacks and will pay no more attention to them then they pay to any other of the various quacks, nutjobs, and wackos running around spouting bullsh*t.
3:06 pm
Whoa there. I didn’t call them traitors. Dupes perhaps. Useful idiots to be sure.
Unless you mean this:
...propaganda in service to people that Brown, whose work was most praiseworthy in Rwanda, should have recognized as kin to the genocidal maniacs who hacked 800,000 tribesmen to death in the 1990’s. The beheaders and mass murderers that we are fighting in Iraq were aided by this study. And Brown and his team should be abjectly ashamed of themselves for knowingly giving them assistance and comfort.
I see where it could be misconstrued as me accusing them of being traitors in that “knowingly” giving the other side assistance might be going too far.
What was in my mind while writing it was that they must have known the political context in which the study would be viewed. Given there are only two sides to the equation, one must come to the conclusion that they knew it would hurt one side and help the other since even a political neophyte knows that the only way the insurgents and terrorists win is if we leave. Trying to hasten that day by using science in a blatantly political way is dishonest at least and stupid at best.
3:22 pm
Rick,
Perhaps you have outlined this previously, but can you provide links or guidance to facts where the Bush Administration has manipulated scientific findings to advance their agenda?
Thanks in advance.
Christopher
3:24 pm
Those two links I supply to other blog posts of mine will take you to some others.
Otherwise, Google Bush + Science and start reading.
10:05 am
Mmm…http://crookedtimber.org/2007/07/27/alice-in-wonderland-and-the-lancet-study/ has a debunking of the rebuttal that looks pretty good. From it:
“And looking at the charts in David’s paper, it’s clear to see that the reason why the left edge of his estimate of the risk ratio has been dragged below 1 is that a substantial part of the distribution of his Bayesian estimate of the post-war death rate is below zero (and an even more substantial part is in regions of positive but wildly improbably death rates like one or two per 100K). That’s all there is to it, CT readers; the majority of the rest of the Deltoid thread consists of three or four people trying to explain that the Roberts et al. paper doesn’t make the same mistake.”
That would tend to throw a rather large divide by zero moment in there.
8:57 am
Bogus Lancet Study Gets a Good Fisking…
Just before the 2004 election Lancet published a study claiming that more than 100,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US invasion. David Kane, an Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University, rips this bogus s…