Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis

You exposed your holocaust denial/Khazar conspiracy nonsense in this post:

And here:

 

Yes, many people need childish equivalencies to make their little world work.

- - - Updated - - -

Not much of a historian are you?

 

A stunning display of blatant ignorance.

 

Did they poll the dead terrorists too?

 

You're a holocaust denier, Khazar conspiracist, who sings the praises of Salafist self confessed murderers and you are entitled to your laughable opinions, and I am entitled to counter your anti-semitic propaganda at every turn.

The majority of non-Islamist loving apologists find the Lancet survey laughable, once again the study is so flawed that the man responsible has been sacked and sanctioned and they refuse to release the methodology for independent analysis.

 

Sometimes they will increase to get more sympathy sometimes downplay them to apear stronger.

Again I never use them do you have faith in all the numbers they provide?
Why do you have a problem with numbers from other sources btw?

And according to you punishable by death? jezus so apprently anyone who helps anyone against the USA is now marked for death?

Yes it is, and its the same BS argument as in "every israeli child eventualy becomes part of the IDF so he is a target". No targets are those directly involved in actions .

And then you wonder why the USA is hated so much in those area's dont you?
This mindset of your is abrely different from those terrorist btw.

Yes IDF soldiers signed up for this, gaza civilians didnt, they have no choice.

Nope they are directly involved, again we are not talking about the guys making the bombs we are talking about nurses and teachers .

 

As I pointed out previously, the exact same methodology was used in other conflicts such as the Congo, with none of the media controversy. The only reason the Lancet study is regarded as controversial is because their findings proved to be a hot political potato to all those who are uncritical of the actions of the West.

 

This is crap. The exact same methodology was used in other conflicts with none of the controversy of Iraq. Why do you think that might be, genius? The study is a peer reviewed study. You are a liar.

 

To reiterate for the benefit of all objective and impartial observers, in 2000 Lancet author Roberts began the first of three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in which he used methods akin to those of the Iraq study. Roberts' first survey estimated that an astonishing 1.7 million people had died in Congo over 22 months of armed conflict - on average 2,600 people were dying every day. The IRC's president, Reynold Levy, put the figures in perspective:

“It's as if the entire population of Houston was wiped off the face of the Earth in a matter of months.” (Hrvoje Hranjski and Victoria Brittain, ‘2,600 a day dying in Congolese war,’ The Guardian, June 10, 2000)

As Roberts says, the reaction compared to the Iraq study could not have been more different:

"Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." (Quoted, Lila Guterman, ‘Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored,’ The Chronicle Of Higher Education, January 27, 2005; http://chronicle.com/free/2005/01/2005012701n.htm)

Indeed, within a month of Roberts’ IRC report being published, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, and later that year, the United Nations called for $140 million in aid to the country, more than doubling its previous annual request. Citing the study, the US State Department announced an additional $10 million for emergency programmes in Congo.

The large gap between the Lancet estimate and that of Iraq Body Count - a constant feature of press coverage - is, in reality, not controversial. John Sloboda, a professor of psychology at the University of Keele, and a co-founder of Iraq Body Count, says his team's efforts will inevitably lead to a count smaller than the actual figure because not every death is reported in the news media.

But uninformed cretins, know better.

 

Interestingly, the right-wing press appears to have been marginally more rational and honest in its news reporting on the Iraq figures than the so-called liberal press. For example, the Times wrote of the Lancet report in November 2004:

“While doubts have been cast over some of the report's findings... If anything, researchers appear to have erred on the side of caution, opting to omit all data from Fallujah, where the mortality rates were significantly higher.” (Sam Lister, ‘Body-count report makes a mockery of Labour's “passion” for statistical analysis,’ The Times, November 23, 2004)

The Financial Times even managed to make the obvious point:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results.

“An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘". (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

 

"Um", yes they are, genius. Les Roberts, lead author of the Lancet report, said as of 2005:

"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based." (Roberts, email to Media Lens, August 22, 2005)

Whereas the Lancet report estimated around 100,000 civilian deaths in October 2004, IBC reported 17,000 at that time. The Lancet authors found:

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths." (www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html)

Indeed 84 per cent of the violent deaths were reported to have been caused by the actions of 'coalition' forces and 95 per cent of those deaths were due to airstrikes and artillery.

IBC pointed out, "it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media... our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording". (Iraq Body Count, Quick FAQ and Press Release, 7th November 2004, www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.php)

So there we have it, IBC THEMSELVES ADMIT TO THEIR OWN TOTAL AS BEING AN UNDERESTIMATE OF THE TRUE POSITION.

 

Moving on a couple of years to February 2007, Les Roberts, co-author of the 2004 and 2006 Lancet reports, argued that Britain and America might by then have triggered in Iraq "an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide", in which 800,000 people were killed. (Roberts, 'Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit,' The Independent, February 14, 2007; http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece)

Roberts was speaking at the time of the then newly released poll by ORB which provided strong evidence for this claim, and strong support for the findings of the 2006 Lancet study, which reported 655,000 deaths. Roberts sent the following email to medialens in response to the ORB poll:

"The poll is 14 months later with deaths escalating over time. That alone accounts for most of the difference [between the October 2006 Lancet paper and the ORB poll]. There are confidence interval issues, there are reasons to assume the Lancet estimate is too low but the same motives for under-reporting should apply to ORB. Overall they seem very much to align. (e.g. both conclude that: most commonly violent deaths are from gunshot wounds [in contradiction to IBC and the Iraqi Ministry of Health (IMOH) most deaths are outside of Baghdad [in contradiction to the other passive monitoring sources which tallied ~3/4th of deaths in the first 4 years in Baghdad and have only recently attributed even 1/2 as being elsewhere], Diyala worse than Anbar....)."

(September 14, 2007).

And yet, despite its obvious significance, the ORB study was almost entirely blanked by the US-UK media which, for political reasons prefers to quote the bogus IBC.

As I've said previously, IBC does not at all offer a “total” figure to be compared with the Lancet and ORB studies. IBC only collects records of violent civilian deaths 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.

 

No it wasn't and you can't say it was because the methodology is such (*)(*)(*)(*) that they won't release it for independent analysis and the man responsible has been sacked and sanctioned, so enough with the propaganda.

 

Les Roberts was not the head investigator you are once again lying, the lead investigator was Dr. Gilbert Burnham he has been sacked and sanctioned for a propagandist and not a scientist and his methodology is so flawed that they won't even release it for independent 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

This is an out and out blatant lie, the majority of deaths were from gunshots and car bombs:

The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), airstrike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

That's from Lancets own survey!

There we have it Trout proof positive that the authors of the Lancet survey are overt frauds who are even lying about the findings of their own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing survey.

Furthermore; the IBC states unequivocally that only 37% of the casualties are the result of coalition forces:


37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
9%. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
36%. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
11%. Unknown agents (11%).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Gee I guess that means that I was right and your sources are unreliable bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because the last time I checked 100% - 37% = 63%, meaning that the majority of civilian deaths are not on the hands of the coalition forces and Les Roberts is a fraud in fact his own damn survey clearly states that the responsibility for the majority of civilian deaths is either unknown or from anti-coalition forces:

31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Yes obviously some deaths won't get reported but the suggestion that reported deaths and those registered by the Iraqi ministry of health are off by a factor of 800,000 simply does not hold a modicum of credibility.

 

Nonsense. As I've said previously, the methodology was the same as previous conflicts and not a whisper of disapproval. In fact, the Lancet were widely praised.

 

The IBC...LOL.

 

Read the edited post, the Lancet authors are lying about their surveys own damn findings:

Les Roberts was not the head investigator you are once again lying, the lead investigator was Dr. Gilbert Burnham he has been sacked and sanctioned for a propagandist and not a scientist and his methodology is so flawed that they won't even release it for independent 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

This is an out and out blatant lie, the majority of deaths were from gunshots and car bombs:

The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), airstrike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

That's from Lancets own survey!

There we have it Trout proof positive that the authors of the Lancet survey are overt frauds who are even lying about the findings of their own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing survey.

Furthermore; the IBC states unequivocally that only 37% of the casualties are the result of coalition forces:


37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
9%. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
36%. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
11%. Unknown agents (11%).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Gee I guess that means that I was right and your sources are unreliable bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because the last time I checked 100% - 37% = 63%, meaning that the majority of civilian deaths are not on the hands of the coalition forces and Les Roberts is a fraud in fact his own damn survey clearly states that the responsibility for the majority of civilian deaths is either unknown or from anti-coalition forces:

31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

Yes obviously some deaths won't get reported but the suggestion that reported deaths and those registered by the Iraqi ministry of health are off by a factor of 800,000 simply does not hold a modicum of credibility.

- - - Updated - - -

No the nonsense is your assertion that you or anyone else knows what their methodology even was because they won't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing release it for independent 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

 

Your hatchet job of an article which smears Gilbert Burnam is part of a similar pattern whose purpose is to attempt to discredit the credible Lancet study for political reasons. This smearing of the man in question is part and parcel of a propaganda wave that was initially generated by a January 4, 2008 article in the US-based National Journal which smeared the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies on mortality in Iraq, which estimated 98,000 and 655,000 war-related deaths, respectively. Distortions had been boosted through high-profile media, and through the blogosphere, to create the impression of a rational consensus. The targets were leading scientists working for some of the world’s most respected research organisations.

I'm surprised you haven't regurgitated The National Journal's particular hatchet job on here given it's explosive implications for propagandists and Iraq war apologists like yourself. So what did the Journal's hatchet job comprise? Well, for all those interested, it comprised of a 6,900-word report, ’Data Bomb,’ by Neil Munro and Carl Cannon. Just like the smears against Mr Burnam, it used speculation, innuendo and numerous references to mostly unnamed “critics”, to smear the Lancet studies, focusing particularly on the 2006 study known as Lancet II.

The most serious charge involved Professor John Tirman, Executive Director and Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies (MIT). Munro and Cannon wrote:

“Tirman commissioned the Lancet II survey with $46,000 from George Soros's Open Society Institute and additional support from other funders.” (Munro and Cannon, ‘Data Bomb,’ National Journal, January 4, 2008; http://news.nationaljournal.com/ articles/databomb/index.htm)

The significance?

“That means that nearly half of the study's funding came from an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.” (ibid)

Munro and Cannon asked “whether a latent desire to feed the American public's opposition to the war might have shaped these studies”. (ibid)

The Wall Street Journal picked up the story and ran with it. A January 9, 2008 editorial commented on Lancet II:

“We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.

“It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident.” (‘The Lancet’s Political Hit,’ Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2008; http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB119984087808076475.html)

The Boston Globe weighed in with an article titled, 'A war report discredited':

“Much of the funding for the study came from the Open Society Institute of leftist billionaire George Soros, a strident critic of the Iraq war who, as Munro and Cannon point out, ‘spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.’” (Jeff Jacoby, ‘A war report discredited,’ Boston Globe, January 13, 200

The Globe described the National Journal article as a devastating “debunking” of the Lancet‘s work: “the truth, it turns out, is that the report was drenched with politics, and its jaw-dropping conclusions should have inspired anything but confidence”.

Across the Atlantic, the Sunday Times followed up with an article titled, ‘Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study.’ (Brendan Montague, Sunday Times, January 13, 200

Melanie Phillips wrote in the Spectator on January 10:

“A story in the Wall Street Journal highlights a remarkable article in the National Journal, which reveals startling information about the infamous 2006 Lancet ‘study’ which purported to show that Iraqi casualties had totalled more than 650,000 in the three years since the fall of Saddam in 2003. The figure was clearly absurd. The NJ authors say they have now learned that this ‘research’ was funded by George Soros, the financier who has spent millions of dollars trying to destroy George W Bush.” (Phillips, ‘That study,’ The Spectator, January 10, 2008; http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/441491/that-lancet-study.thtml)

Phillips asked:

“Whatever happened to peer review? Who can take the Lancet seriously ever again?”

Phillips has form. Last year, she wrote:

“Channel Four’s devastating documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle has blown an enormous hole in every fundamental claim made to support the climate change obsession...” (Phillips, ‘The emperor’s green new clothes,’ March 9, 2007; http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1467)

A large number of right-wing blogs have also used the National Journal article to discredit the Lancet studies. If there is no smoke without fire, the right-wing media have done their level best to generate plenty of smoke. The story is now ‘in the air’ and will doubtless be referenced in future media coverage. That the allegations were complete bullcrap didn't matter as far as the media were concerned because the damage had already been done.

 

You just lie your arse off time after time.

 

Now let's recap. It was you who were claiming that the IBC trumped The Lancet in terms of credibility.

From the IBC themselves:

"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).
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?

 

Holy hell, the methodology is not good, how many times do I have to tell you and provide the evidence for my assertion that THEY WILL NOT RELEASE THE METHODOLOGY FOR PEER REVIEW!!! And how many times do I have to say that while some deaths will not get reported the assertion that 800,000 deaths won't get reported either by the media or the Iraqi Ministry of Health just has no credibility whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

What did I lie about? I posted Lancet's own *******n findings which stated that the majority of deaths came not from airstrikes or coalition forces but from gunshots and car bombs and anti-coalition forces and unknown actors, it seems you are the one who just got proven to be lying.

 

So as a reminder for all interested parties:

From a US press editorial 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).
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?

 

How the hell can it be peer reviewed when they won't release the methodology for independent analysis???

 

We did. And I demolished your nonsense.

 

That's your bullcrap. Perhaps you would like to inform the scientific community of that fact::

"Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties