Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis

Having spent some time travelling through Iran, I agree.

 

So if he doesnt write a song about all those countries he is bashing one?

 

An absolute and utter falsification of the reality. It is the IBC that has no credibility and has been totally debunked. I can only assume you've derived your nonsense from totally discredited articles published in the likes of The National Journal, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Spectator or Sunday Times. Contrary to your claims, The Lancet is actually one of the few credible peer-reviewed studies and the IBC a joke. IBC themselves make it clear that there are inherent problems with its methodology. For example, in response to the Lancet study, IBC pointed out:

"We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording." (www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.php, PR10, November 7, 2004).

As data collectors, IBC are not in a position to comment authoritatively on the impact of violence on the capacity of journalists to report accurately from Iraq and have no more insight, no deeper understanding, than anyone else. IBC have used their credibility as data collectors to ‘cross sell’ their credibility as commentators on peer-reviewed epidemiology to the media community. But this second task is unrelated to their task as data collectors, and is an area in which none of the co-authors of their press releases have any research record or publication history in any relevant scientific discipline.

Contrary to many of the claims of those who stand by the IBC, the said organisation is not a group that monitors Iraqi deaths; it is a group that monitors media reports of Iraqi deaths. And IBC monitors media reports of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of violence. IBC does not monitor reports of war-related deaths due to disease, lack of food, water and medicine, and so on. IBC also does not collect reports of Iraqi military deaths. IBC is not primarily an Iraq Body Count, it is not even an Iraq Media Body Count, it is an Iraq Western Media Body Count.

Further, IBC does not at all offer a “total” figure to be compared with the Lancet study (and ORB) study. As stated previously, IBC only collects records of violent civilian deaths which, moreover, are reported by two different (mainly Western) media sources operating in Iraq. Epidemiologists report that this type of study typically captures around 5 per cent of deaths during high levels of violence, such as exists in Iraq. By contrast, the Lancet studies provide figures for all deaths - violent and non-violent, civilian and military, reported and unreported.

In truth, the Lancet study has inherent credibility. The reasons were explained in a rare US press editorial on the matter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) on October 15, 2006:

"Here is one of the world's most respected medical journals publishing a peer-reviewed study by epidemiologists backed by Johns Hopkins University's School of Public Health, part of one of the world's most respected medical schools." ('Methodology in madness,' October 15, 2006)

Richard Brennan, head of health programmes at the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, told Associated Press:

"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones."

Brennan's group has conducted similar projects in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo. He added:

"While the results of this survey may startle people, it's hard to argue with the methodology at this point." (Malcolm Ritter, 'Bush Dismisses Iraq Death Toll Study,' Associated Press Online, October 12, 2006)

Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:

"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study." (Toole, The Age (Melbourne), letters to the editor, October 14, 2006)

Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told the Christian Science Monitor:

"I loved when President Bush said 'their methodology has been pretty well discredited'. That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it." (Dan Murphy, 'Iraq casualty figures open up new battleground,' Christian Science Monitor, October 13, 2006)

John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said:

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." (Anna Badkhen, 'Critics say 600,000 Iraqi dead doesn't tally,' San Francisco Chronicle, October 12, 2006)

Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo. Zogby also noted that US critics accept the method for opinion polls, which are based on interviews with around 1,000 Americans in a country of 300 million people.

Frank Harrell Jr., chair of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, called the study design solid and said it included "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data". (Ritter, op., cit)

Steve Heeringa, director of the statistical design group at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, said:

"Given the conditions (in Iraq), it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion." (Ibid)

BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who described the study as "statistically reliable". (Newsnight, October 11, 2006)

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said:

"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results." (Channel 4 News, October 11, 2006).

 

That is not correct -
Waters has stated that he did more drugs than Barrett ever did. Syd had a diagnosed mental illness = which even large amounts of drugs do not cause!

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot, IBC is run by a bunch of amateurs within the field. For instance, IBC co-founder, John Sloboda is a professor of psychology at the University of Keele, who is described on his university website as “internationally known for his work on the psychology of music” (www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jasbiog.htm). Further, Hamit Dardagan, another leading IBC figure and non-professional epidemiologist is described on the IBC site as “a freelance researcher currently working in London. He has made an in-depth study of the research methods of Professor Marc Herold, who pioneered a media-based methodology for estimating civilian deaths in the Afghan war of 2001-2”. (www.iraqbodycount.org/contacts.php)

How many people are aware that IBC is not in fact run by professional epidemiologists? And why have the amateurs at IBC not responded to elementary suggestions made by professional experts in the field to test the accuracy of their surveillance system?

 

"......by the way, which one's pink?"

 

Again,comparing Israel's actions to the nazis, that's the bashing part.

 

Many of us see Zionists as today's Nazis, and I do not expect that shall be changing as long as Israel continues her Occupation in Palestine and continues her acts of genocide there.

 

Sorry but the assertion that the reported deaths and the findings of the lancet survey are off by a factor of 800.000 are just laughable, not to mention that the Iraqi Ministry of Health itself has come up with figures nowhere near that of the Lancet survey; furthermore, the majority of the deaths were not caused by coalition forces.

The Lancet Survey has absolutely 0 credibility, the methodology is so flawed they won't even let anyone see it because they know themselves that it was propaganda not empirical analysis:


Nondisclosure Cited in Iraq Casualties Study
Feb. 4, 2009
By GARY LANGER

In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.

AAPOR, in a statement, said that in an eight-month investigation, Gilbert Burnham, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on civilian deaths in Iraq."

Hours later, the school itself disclosed its own investigation of the Iraq casualties report "to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred." It said the review "is nearing completion."

Both AAPOR and the school said they had focused on Burnham's study, published in the October 2006 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet, reporting an estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. An earlier, 2004 report, in which Burnham also participated, estimated approximately 98,000 excess deaths to that point.

In its original news release on the 2006 study, the Lancet said, "The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations." Today, Tony Kirby, the Lancet's press officer, said in an e-mail to ABC News: "The Lancet is making no comment."

Burnham did not reply to e-mail and telephone messages.

AAPOR's standards committee chair, Mary E. Losch, said the association, acting on a member's complaint, had formally requested from Burnham "basic information about his survey, including, for example, the wording of questions he used, instructions and explanations that were provided to respondents, and a summary of the outcomes for all households selected as potential participants in the survey."

Losch said Burnham gave some partial answers but "explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research."

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6799754&page=1


American Statistical Association
732 North Washington Street, Al
exandria, Virginia 22314 USA
(703) 684-1221
●
Fax: (703) 683-2307
●
Email: asainfo@amstat.org
Web site: http://www.amstat.org/
February 10, 2009
Richard Kulka, President
The American Association of Public Opinion Research
Group Vice President
Survey Research Abt Associates Inc.
4620 Creekstone Drive, Suite 190
Durham, NC 27703
Dear President Kulka,
As you know, last week, after months
of deliberation, the American
Association for Public Opinion
Research issued a statement finding Dr. Gilber
t Burnham in violation of AAPOR’s Code of
Professional Ethics and Practices
. It appears AAPOR took this
action in accordance with its
“Schedule of Procedures for Dealing with A
lleged AAPOR Code Violations,” and made its
recommendation to censure only after much thought
ful deliberation and in accordance with the due
process rights contained in the schedule.
We are aware that, in taking this action, you have
subjected yourselves to some criticism. On
behalf of the American Statistical Associa
tion, we wish to recognize AAPOR for following
procedure and acting professionally on such a di
fficult and divisive matter. In so doing, you
eloquently express by your actions
the goals stated in your Code.

Sincerely,
Sally Morton, President
Sastry Pantula, President-Elect
Tony Lachenbruch, Past President

http://www.amstat.org/news/pdfs/LettertoAAPORPresidentKulka.pdf



As a result for this gross misconduct Dr. Gilbert was subsequently suspended by John Hopkins:

Action Taken

Because of violations of the Bloomberg School’s policies regarding human subjects research, the School has suspended Dr. Burnham’s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2009/iraq-review.html

This is precisely why they won the “STONEWALLING/COVERUP” Award:

WINNERS: The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and one of its professors, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, for stonewalling in the face of serious questions about a flawed survey project, which reported more than 600,000 Iraqi deaths from 2003 to 2006. The head researcher was formally censured by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for covering up his data collection efforts, but the Bloomberg School refuses to investigate the methodology. (Ah, the wisdom of the three monkeys: “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!&#8221.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the British medical journal, The Lancet, published the results of a survey, designed and supervised by Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and his colleagues.* The survey purported to show that about 600,000 Iraqi deaths occurred in Iraq by July 2006, as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

A lot of people were against the war, but jacking up the body count with bad studies is not a good tactic for anyone. According to economics professor Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway College, these results were anywhere from seven to 14 times as high as other credible estimates, including those made by the non-partisan Iraq Body Count, a consortium of U.S. and U.K researchers, also concerned about the human toll of the war.

Such large differences in estimates led other researchers to question the methodology of the study. But contrary to scientific norms, Burnham refused to provide details about how the survey was conducted. When a complaint was lodged with AAPOR, its standards committee also tried to obtain such details, but was rebuffed. That led to the censure.

What exactly were John Hopkins Bloomberg School, and Burnham, et. al., hiding? AAPOR asked for the kind of information that any scientist doing this type of work should release: a copy of the questionnaire, the consent statement that interviewees have to see, a full description of the selection process, a summary of the disposition of all sample cases, and how the mortality rate was calculated.

John Hopkins Bloomberg School initially stood behind the study, but then eventually concluded that Burnham had made some unauthorized changes in his methodology, and thus “the School has suspended Dr. Burnham’s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.”

But the Bloomberg School has not come clean with the problems of the research project. Their press release admitted that their internal review “did not evaluate aspects of the sampling methodology or statistical approach of the study.” Instead, Bloomberg asserts, “It is expected that the scientific community will continue to debate the best methods for estimating excess mortality in conflict situations in appropriate academic forums.”

Let’s see: The Bloomberg School will not attempt to evaluate what experts believe is almost certainly a faulty methodology, saying the scientific community should make the evaluation. But then the school advises Burnham not to release details about his methods, so the scientific community can’t have the information it needs for a definitive assessment.

Sounds like a cop-out and a Catch 22, all rolled into one!

And we thought Richard Nixon was tricky.

* Burnham G, Lafta R, Doocy S, Roberts L. 2006a. ‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of
Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey’. The Lancet 368:1421-1428. It can be accessed online at http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf.



http://www.imediaethics.org/News/169/2010_top_ten_dubious_polling_awards.php

 

Coming from a holocaust denier who praises radical Islamic terrorists who are self confessed murderers I don't think any Israelis or supporters of Israelis right to exist give a damn about what you have to say about them.

 

This is what genocide looks like



not this



Palestinian territories have a higher population growth rate than Israel does. "Genocide"????? Don't be silly. You and Waters must be high.

 

Their methodology has been debunked by their peers and no other study cooberates their findings. We went over this before.

 

I am not a Holocaust denier because I compare the atrocities to other atrocities and refuse to blindly accept as facts what is unproven.

And I do not praise terrorists.

AND I do not give a damn what any Zionist thinks about anything I say.

 

"Russians never give up"

Of course soldiers should be trained by old maids from Human Rights Watch.

I hope you will not be insulted too much if I say that this remark is not interested for me.

This issue already was discussed, wasn't it?

Everybody here is aware of what he is speaking about.

And what reason you possibly have by putting a false assumption and a false assertion into one sentence?

 

No fences? How about a bloody great wall surrounding Gaza?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1...dsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:0,i:167&tx=119&ty=95

 

Only 98,000 excessive deaths? Well that's ok then...that's around the population of my town. Perfectly acceptable.

Edited for sarcasm.

 

Just yesterday it was a fence.
Today it's already a great wall.
What it'll be tomorrow?

 

You tell me, you build the things.

 

You didn't address any of the issues in my post. It was you who attempted to trump the discredited IBC above a peer-reviewed study. You have nothing other than hot air and a series of strawmen. Now will you please address the issues.

 

I'm not accustomed to build fantasy.
The wall was built in West Bank, not in Gaza.

 

OK thanks for the information.

Not what I said but soldiers should be trained to go by the rules of war and not encouraged to go against and if they are their public should stop crying about people pointing out their criminality.

Not sure how long you will get people responding to you. You have no interest whether your source is credible or not. Well that is one to keep in mind.

Not with you. Not to the best of my knowledge on this thread. For all I know not in this forum but I get that you are here to learn to type or bait rather than debate.

Propaganda. Of course it is not true that everyone agrees with him even if, sad to say from what you say, the majority of Israelis just swish back propaganda with no regard for truth. You do your people a disservice by presenting them all as of one mind. That is generally called racism. Your own soldiers have already told you what the situation was like and how they were encouraged to go against the rules of war and suffered religious indoctrination.

I put what you did. That was true not false and you clearly cannot argue against what I said. Carry on dreaming. I will leave you to get on with it.

 

Exactly/identical to Poland cooperation with the Nazi in the destruction of 3 million Jews...

 

Things like this could never happen in Poland for instance.

 

And how many Poles did the Nazis destroy? 3 million. How many Poles are there named in Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations? Answer me that. You won't because you don't have the human decency, or honesty, to do.
Let me tell you; 6,394; that's over 25% of all those honoured by the Jews.
Now go away and do something useful. Clean my shoes, for example.