Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, January 04, 2008

The Lancet Studies Are Completely Fraudulent? You Don’t Say

Common sense and even a cursory knowledge of history provided plenty of proof that the infamous and widely-discredited Lancet studies were fradulent. Now, via Instapundit, we can follow the money and find that the second study was largely financed by George Soros, who dictated a pre-election release of the data in 2006:

Follow the money. Lancet II was commissioned and financed by Tirman, the executive director of the Center for International Studies at MIT. (His most recent book is 100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World.) After Lancet I was published, Tirman commissioned Burnham to do the second study, and sent him $50,000. When asked where Tirman got the money, Burnham told NJ: "I have no idea."

In fact, the funding came from the Open Society Institute created by Soros, a top Democratic donor, and from three other foundations, according to Tirman. The money was channeled through Tirman's Persian Gulf Initiative. Soros's group gave $46,000, and the Samuel Rubin Foundation gave $5,000. An anonymous donor, and another donor whose identity he does not know, provided the balance, Tirman said. The Lancet II study cost about $100,000, according to Tirman, including about $45,000 for publicity and travel. That means that nearly half of the study's funding came from an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.

The very idea that Iraq suffered anything close to the casualties claimed in that study - on the order of two to three times the casulties suffered by both side in the American Civil War, or higher than the death toll of the conventional and nuclear bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hamburg put together, was simply ludicrous for any student of the history of warfare. There simply were no reports or photographic evidence of anything remotely close to such death tolls and damage coming out of Iraq.

The ridiculously high figures posited by that study of course gained wide attention among the credulous throughout the world, but now it is becoming crystal clear that the entire enterprise was financed by high-octane leftist partisans and written by some more concerned about 'imperialism' than the truth.

Once again, in the tradition of Walter Duranty, we find the left is most eager to play games with numbers of mass casualties to suit their ideological biases and project their agenda.

Crossposted from Ken McCracken

Comments

Read the whole article.  As one who works in statistics for a living, I’m convinced that the Lancet article systematically underestimated the confidence range that their type of analysis would have generated--and then that the chief researcher claims not to have known who was funding it.  Yup. uh-huh.  Any claims of impartiality on the part of the researcher just went out the window with that one--not to mention he’s casting doubt on the basic inquisitiveness needed to be a decent researcher in any field.

Bike Bubba on January 4, 2008 at 08:50 am

Ken,

good catch.  This provides yet another nail in the coffin of both the acadamies and the MSM’s credibility.

via my Treo 755p on the go…


Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Rodney Graves on January 4, 2008 at 09:15 am
Rob
Rob
18089 comments
Send a private message

Back when the original Lancet reports on civilian casualties in Iraq were coming out one problem I noticed was how much they relied on testimony from witnesses and relatives to determine deaths.

How often did they talk to a family with anti-US feelings who exaggerated the number of relatives killed by the fighting?  Or who attributed deaths to US forces when, in reality, they were killed by non-combat causes.  Or even by the insurgents themselves.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm

The first Lancet “Study” numbers: 95% CI 8000-194000

What that means is that they are 95 percent sure that the number of civilian deaths was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000.

That’s a dartboard and the people who trumped the story are gullible fools. Forget a statistics class, some simple common sense would serve them well.

likwidshoe on January 4, 2008 at 03:40 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.