David Adesnik has replied to my post on malnutrition in Iraq. He has conceded that the Washington Post was reporting the results of a new survey rather than the results of one from 2003. But he is still arguing that the war did not cause the increase in malnutrition seen in the 2003 study:
The question isn't whether a certain child had some diarrhoea during the invasion, but whether that child started to have diarrhoea (or whether the condition intensified) during that five week period.
If we look at this UNICEF press release (which Adesnik already linked to) we find (my emphasis):
UNICEF says that unsafe water from disrupted water services may be playing a significant role in the findings. Poor water quality is largely to blame for a rapid increase in cases of diarrhoea among children in recent weeks.
Speaking from Baghdad, UNICEF Health and Nutrition Officer Dr. Wisam Al-Timini said that the survey found that more than 1 in 10 children were in need of treatment for dehydration.
"This suggests exactly what we know: Poor water and sanitation leads to diarrhoea, and then to dehydration and malnutrition. These children need treatment to stop their bodies from wasting because of an inability to retain vitamins and nutrients from ordinary foods. Those severely malnourished who do not get treatment are at very high risk of dying."
Adesnik continues:
In order to show that the invasion was the primary cause of rising malnutrition, one has to show that the preponderance of the children's severe weight loss took place during the six weeks of major combat operations, rather than the preceding year or so.
But the UNICEF report says:
"If we compare these results with earlier findings, we note that children who have generally grown over the past few years because of improved nutrition have suddenly and dramatically wasted. This coincides with war and the breakdown of social services.
Adesnik then looks for trouble by writing:
On a brighter note for OxBlog, Tim doesn't seem to challenge my assertion that the similar results of the UNICEF and IAIS studies demonstrate that the malnutrition rate has been essentially stable since the beginning of the occupation. Thus, the WaPo was still very wrong to report that malnutrition "shot up...this year".
Well, they're not strictly comparable since one is for Baghdad and one is national, but more importantly, let's look at what the Post said:
Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.
After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year,
The Post did not say that the increase happened this year as Adesnik seems to believe, but that it happened since the invasion. Clearly, "this year" refers to when the new survey was conducted, not to when all of the increase happened. Point to the Washington Post.
Ok, let me make the argument again:
1. Acute malnutrition and diarrhoea are linked in children
2. Diarrhoea is linked to the state of water and sewage systems.
3. The answer to Adesnik's statement that "The question isn't whether a certain child had some diarrhoea during the invasion, but whether that child started to have diarrhoea (or whether the condition intensified) during that five week period." is obviously, SINCE THE WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS IN LARGE PARTS OF IRAQ WERE DESTROYED DURING THOSE FIVE WEEKS, yes, many children started to have diarrhoea in that period. The sky is blue David.
4. Unless diarrhoea is treated with rehydration salts children die from it in large numbers. With all the looting that went on, all medicines were in short to zero supply in that five week period
5. Obviously many children died.
Androsik appears to be either the sort of fellow who has to touch a red hot iron to believe it is hot or the sort who enjoys punching himself in the face in public.