The fun continues in this comment thread. Highlights:
Michael Fumento:
The authors claimed to have come up with one set of numbers including Falluja, another without. But strangely, they never present the "without numbers." Lambert knows this because I told him directly. Anyway, it's in the study---or rather, it's NOT in the study.
John Fleck:
A quick refresher on where the Lancet study's authors included the "without Falluja" numbers. It's in the paper's abstract. That's the thing that comes right at the beginning: "We estimate that 98,000 more deaths than expected (8,000--194,000)happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included."
It would be one thing if Fumento simply misspoke in his original TCS piece when he said the inclusion of the Falluja cluster biased the study and made it worthless. But in the face of Lambert and others repeatedly quoting the precise, clear and unambiguous wording with which the study did exactly the opposite, excluding the Falluja data as an outlier, Fumento continues to misrepresent it
Jonathan Dursi:
There is nothing in Fumento's analysis which even comes close to disputing the Lancet article---indeed, it's not even clear he read the abstract.
Michael Fumento:
Lambert, Fleck, and Dursi (an epidemiologica expert because his field is astronomy) just won't let go. The study did not present numbers that included Falluja, either in the abstract or text. Yet they accuse ME of not reading it.
Mark Tyrrell Frank:
Michael Fumento is quite extraordinary. How can he continue to say this? The text in the abstract and in the body quite clearly gives figures both with and without Falluja. E.g. maximum likelihood estimate of death risk is increased 2.5 times including Falluja and only 1.5 times without. This is not so much deception as sheer madness. Or maybe he has a different copy of the paper?
Sheer madness or deception? I report, you decide.
In the first passage from Fumento, you have him saying:
In the last, you have him saying:
At first I thought you must have misquoted him in one or the other, but I followed the link, and sure enough he's changed his mind. First he thinks they never published numbers without Falluja; now he thinks they never published numbers with Falluja. That could only be true if they didn't publish any numbers... or Fumento hasn't read the study.
I should mention that after a rocky start, I had a relatively pleasant email exchange with Michael Fumento that concluded with him wishing me a nice weekend. The email exchange didn't really convey much in the line of improved argument; but given that there have been some fairly nasty-sounding emails from him posted on various web pages, I figure a more positive experience is worth noting for balance's sake.
Perhaps engaging in discussion that's not nasty is as close to gratitude for constructive criticism as Fumento can go without his ego self-combusting?
Let us examine how the game is played. Fumento puts up clearly false statements. His friends repeat them "Michael Fumento the well know whatever, has shown that....." The fact that Fumento's statements are, shall we say, reality limited, is irrelevant. The fact that Tim and others point this out never gets mentioned by the organ grinders. Lott, of course, also plays this game. Right now there is someone with a megaphone shouting that "Michael Fumento has completely refuted his critics, shown them to be fools..."
Anyone who offers Fumento any kindness in this exchange or treats him as an honest, but misguided fellow, is playing into his hands. The only answer is to get a bigger megaphone. Sorry