The British medical journal Lancet has become somewhat well-known for publishing a study of Iraqi war dead putting the number of civilian and combatant dead at around 650,000 from 2003 into 2006. New research seems to show that not only is that number wrong, but the study on which it is based shows signs of ethical lapses. Here’s the abstract to the new study:
This paper considers the second Lancet survey of mortality in Iraq published in October 2006. It presents some evidence suggesting ethical violations to the survey’s respondents including endangerment, privacy breaches and violations in obtaining informed consent. Breaches of minimal disclosure standards examined include non-disclosure of the survey’s questionnaire, data-entry form, data matching anonymised interviewer identifications with households and sample design. The paper also presents some evidence relating to data fabrication and falsification, which falls into nine broad categories. This evidence suggests that this survey cannot be considered a reliable or valid contribution towards knowledge about the extent of mortality in Iraq since 2003.
The full paper, by Professor Michael Spagat of the Department of Economics at Royal Holloway, University of London, can be read (or downloaded as a pdf) here.
This paper was released on April 23 and has been burning up the world media so while I realize I’m telling you something you’ve already heard all over television and the MSM I figured you’d want to read the article that’s caused this firestorm of protest and controversy. Yeah I know.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Nice to know the people who were coming up with the numbers for Global Warming will be able to find work gathering statistics for the Lancet.
Zing!
It’s nice to see someone’s detailed work so completely vindicate my initial suspicions.
Here’s my analysis from back in 2006:
http://notropis.blogspot.com/2006/10/iraqi-death-survey-wrap-up.html
notropis… good work. Is there a better feeling than being right? I guess it depends on what one’s right about or being right PLUS getting paid for it, but kudos and welcome to Threedonia!
It’s a well-deserved punch in the mouth for Lambert at Deltoid and other idiots who defended this reprehensible piece of hackery.
Thanks for dropping by Dave! Love Classical Values. Check it out Threedonians!
[...] And “shows signs of ethical lapses?” [...]
That study was a fraud from day one
It was demon spawn… it was a fraud from its conception.
What is this nonsense? It’s years late and the Lancet “study” activists and corrupt methodology were debunked almost the moment it came out, rushed to print by the Lancet in Oct’04 in an attempt to sway our Presidential election.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=lancet+study+fraud+iraq+war+dead&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=52cf5fffbd8858a9
What is it that brings this fraud up again?
it was debunked in an academic journal and is unusually direct in calling a spade a spade.
I remember the Times story too, but this is in house smack down if you will… accompanied by the usual chorus of crickets. Here’s a quote from your linked atory by the study’s (to which I linked) Dr. Spagat:
Like any good and ethical academic or anyone making a point… saying it and knowing it is one thing. Proving it is quite another. Dr. Spagat now has hard proof to offer the world that the Lancet is not only bullshit, but fraudulent bullshit — as opposed to merely incompetent.
“But it’s peer reviewed! The statistics are settled!”
peer means equal — so fraudulent politically motivated researchers sought out like-minded enablers.
Peer-review is a great standard when it’s not infected with politics or incompetence. That’s why this study is so important. It calls out The Lancet from the proper place and by someone with authority to call them out.
They ought to change their name from “The Lancet” to “The Boil.”
hmmm, the old TechCentralStation posting slaughtering the fraud is gone.
But here’s another able examination from only 6mos after the fraud was published, over three years ago -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
The first study on this published in the Lancet is also fraudulent for one simple reason: they assumed that neighboring provinces had similar amounts of violence from the war. This assumption was based on nothing other than a hunch by the Iraqis involved with the study. No documentation, no evidence, no reason to support this assumption.
If that assumption was incorrect, as it must have been due to the chaotic nature of war, then the entire survey is falsified due to the fact that its math relies precisely on that assumption to create its numbers.
The researchers behind the piece invented a concept where they grouped clusters together, never before seen in any such work because it’s a fallacious method that undermines the very concepts of epistemology.
Look into it!