Australia's own version of Baghdad Bob offers the following comments on the Lancet study (slightly paraphrased):
"The Lancet, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."
The Lancet is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
Update: After dismissing the Lancet study because it was based on a "Survey of a Thousand Households", Blair declares a Conservative victory in Canada based on a survey of 1,125 Canadians. Odd.
More like this
The latest pundit to have a go at the Lancet study is Andrew Bolt. Like most of the critics, Bolt just does not have the statistical background to produce a competent critique. In Bolt's case this is even less excusable, since he had the benefit of the Economist's excellent…
Chris Bertram points out that a new study suggests that the Lancet's finding of an increase in infant mortality following the invasion of Iraq is correct. The Washington Post reports:
After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two…
The warbloggers have been attempting to spin the result of the election here to their advantage. Cori Dauber claims that the election "was a referendum on Australia's participation in Iraq", and Glenn Reynolds claims that it was "in no small part as a referendum on the war…
As my readers know, the reason why the Lancet study and the ILCS give different numbers for deaths in Iraq is because the studies measured different things over a different time periods. Of course, that fact isn't going to stop pro-war columnists from claiming that the ILCS refutes the Lancet…