Worth noting that the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox news fame. The methodology is discussed here: http://www.iraqanalysis.org/mortality/440, I don't pretend to have the experience or training to interpret it's accuracy, but it has been used in other areas such as the Congo where the Bush administration accepted the results.
On 08/03/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I forgot the link > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5538/2187a > > SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: > Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? > Martin Enserink > BARCELONA, SPAIN--Despite its flaws, letting scientists anonymously > judge each other's work is widely considered the "least bad way" to > weed out weak manuscripts or research proposals and improve promising > ones. But that common wisdom was questioned last weekend at a meeting > attended by hundreds of editors of medical journals and academics. In > a meta-analysis that surprised many--and that some doubt--researchers > found little evidence that peer review actually improves the quality > of research papers. > > > On 3/8/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know that I care what the number is. It's too high no matter > what it is. That said, The Lancet is a peer-reviewd journal so there has to > be some sort of argument to be made for the methodology. I do not know what > the methodology is, or whether the number is accurate, but if you think that > their review protocols are invalid, welp let's hope you don't visit the > doctor much. Unless you think that it's some sort of story they made up in > this one instance. A new variation on "you're only saying that because you > hate America/George Bush/Baby Jesus" I guess. > > > > >Getting a very accurate count, akin to the U.S. military count, is > virtually > > >impossible. But getting a decent count- within an order of magnitude, > say, > > >should be fairly simple. Despite the dangers and the limitations, > reporters > > >seem to have done a pretty good job of reporting specific incidents of > > >violence around Iraq, as the daily rattle of bombings, shootings, and > > >discoveries of dead bodies would suggest. > > > > > >Given that reporting, you could go back and calculate an average daily > total > > >for deaths and then arrive at a number of total deaths over a specific > > >period. It wouldn't be very accurate- nothing more than an estimate, > really, > > >but it would certainly be accurate within an order of magnitude. Let's > > >assume that 50 civilians a day died, on average, during that time > period. > > >That comes out to around the 50,000 number that various groups have > > >estimated. Does anyone really believe that daily toll is significantly > > >higher than 50? Say 100, or 200, or even 300? Many of us have been > following > > >the war since the beginning, and I for one have never gotten a sense > that > > >100 or more people were dying everyday. Yesterday, for example, more > than > > >100 people were killed in suicide attacks, and it was a very prominent > story > > >because of the body count. If there were body counts like that > everyday, the > > >stories on the news would be totally different than what we see. > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:229770 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
