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…

“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.

Otherwise, Google Bush + Science and start reading.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.