Boosted from comments. Robert Chung writes:
David Kane wrote:
Anyway, it seems clear to me now that you are bluffing
Me, bluffing about knowing how calculate a CMR? Ouch, that hurts.
David, what a fascinating example of hubris. You do not know how to do something, so you conclude that no one else can either. However, that something “seems clear to you” has, once again, led you down the wrong path — though for you this seems about par for the course.
As you ought to have known long ago, we are clearly not “in the same boat.” The reason you ought to have known this long ago is that you have had in your possession the proof of what I have been saying — but with the blinders you’re wearing you couldn’t see it. 20 months ago, I showed a graph with the cluster CMRs; more remarkably, 14 months ago and then again one month ago, both times in response to your own requests, I have pointed you to my code in which can be found the “magic formula” for calculating the pre- and post-invasion CMRs. Perhaps you missed it since the calculations were cyptically and misleadingly labeled “pre-invasion CMR” and “post-invasion CMR”? I leave getting the overall CMR from the cluster CMRs to you as an exercise.
I, and others, have warned you that you have been confounding the estimates of CMR and the estimates of the CIs around those estimates. You keep saying that my estimates of the CMRs and excess mortality depend on bootstrapping. They do not. The proof is in the code you ignore. You keep saying that Roberts’ estimates of excess mortality depend on normality. They do not. Despite your exegesis of the rest of the article, the proof is at the bottom of the left hand column on page 3, where the CMR calculation is given. Look at it, and please (please!) recognize that it does not depend on normality.
So this is what it comes down to: the estimates of excess mortality don’t depend on normality, but your argument does, and there is no evidence that Roberts and Garfield made that assumption. You have done this even though there is no evidence for it and, in fact, there is evidence against it. Your argument is a phantom argument. There is nothing there. This is what Tim Lambert meant when he said that all you’ve shown is that assuming normality for the CI including Falluja is wrong.
David, there are legitimate criticisms of the Roberts and Burnhams articles. Yours isn’t one of them. Your paper is trash, and you’re hurting yourself. Do the right thing. Write Malkin and Fumento and tell them you didn’t know what you were talking about. Tell them you apologize for the exploded heads. You can even tell them you’re working on yet another crazy argument. You don’t have to tell them that you accused a demography professor of not knowing how to calculate a CMR.