Tim Lambert's weblog
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Misinformation from Lomborg | Main | Bailey corrects mistake, Bolt does not »
Category: LancetIraq
Posted on: February 8, 2007 5:22 AM, by Tim Lambert
Dale Keiger's article on the Lancet studies is now online:
Newspapers the world over put the number in their headlines. Reporters tried to explain it, often bungling the job. To dismiss the research, critics seized on its implausibility, in the process frequently distorting its meaning. Political leaders dodged its implications by brushing it aside as the meaningless product of a discredited methodology. In a leading scientific journal, other scientists challenged how the study had been done.
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
With regard to the Iraqi MoH, you've got to wonder how well it's being run and how much of it's time is being dedicated to counting bodies when you read things like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6341321.stm
I'm not saying for sure that their numbers are wrong, but this story opens the possibility that the Ministry is in dissaray and not doing its job properly.
This links in with other reports we've read though, about how the main Baghdad hospital is a journalist free zone except under escort.
This highlights the need for more studies.
Posted by: Paul | February 8, 2007 11:40 AM
1) My (unsuccessful) attempts to gain access to the underlying data continue. Wish me luck.
2) Thanks to Tim for providing links to such useful articles.
3) Can someone clarify whether the authors have ever released the exact number of houses skipped for safety reasons? That is, the procedure was to pick a random starting point but, if that seemed too dangerous, to start somewhere else. This is not unreasonable, but exactly how often did it happen?
Posted by: David Kane | February 12, 2007 10:14 PM