Daniel Davies has an excellent roundup of the Lancet discussion.
I've added an update to my post about Gerard Alexander's attack on the Lancet.
Chris at Mixing Memory takes down another Lancet critique, this one by John Ray.
More like this
The defective refutations of the Lancet study just keep on coming. First, we have Gerard Alexander writing in the Weekly standard:
But the study's researchers were sure to survey in Falluja, far and away the most violent city in post-invasion Iraq. Falluja turned out to be such…
Update your bookmarks: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp
And RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/GeneExpressionBlog
If you have a weblog that links to ScienceBlogs GNXP, I would appreciate you update the link for the sake of PageRank.
There isn't much to say about the move. There wasn't one big…
One interesting feature of blogspace discussion of the Lancet study has been the comments from warbloggers, who, despite not even knowing what cluster sampling is, have been absolutely certain that the methodology of the study has been discredited. For instance, Arthur…
Daniel Davies takes apart another bogus critique of the Lancet study, this one from the British Foreign Office that relies on comparing apples to oranges. Michael Lewis at Iraq Analysis has a more detailed rebuttal.
Remarkably, Tech Central Station has published an article by Iain Murray…
Have you looked at Mike Dunford's criticism on Usenet? What do you think?
Brad DeLong has mirrored DD at his site, and
added a useful comment
regarding the likelihood of overestimating the incidence of a rare event with cluster sampling.
DD added two thoughtful responses in the comments.
It's worth a read.
I'm not impressed by Dunford. Much of it is just flatly wrong, like: "The results section of the paper contained NO data at all regarding when during the conflict deaths occurred." See figure 2 of the paper.
The only reasonable point he makes is that because people might have been displaced to safer areas, more dangerous areas might have been oversampled.