Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis

Smears and lies:

In 2004 Roberts was the lead investigator in the field and lead author of a study, co-authored with four others, titled "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey," published in The Lancet. In the study, he estimated that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the Iraq war at a time when official U.S. government estimates were much lower.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Roberts_(epidemiologist)

From a Les Roberts interview:

Question: How would you summarise your main findings?

Reply from Roberts:: "The bottom line is that by any measure the death rate after the invasion was far higher than the death rate before.

Most of the deaths were violent and most of those deaths were caused by the coalition forces. There is little doubt that these “excess deaths” are as a result of the invasion and not some new flu epidemic or something else."

http://socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=6271

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

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

According to my maths, 31 per cent is greater than 24 per cent.

 

To its credit, the BBC website has tried harder than most mainstream media to report the issue honestly. In particular, BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds responded to complaints by agreeing to invite questions from members of the public and to forward them to the authors of the Lancet report. On October 30, 2006 the BBC posted an edited version of answers from Les Roberts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6099020.stm

Below, are Roberts' unedited answers. Also added is Roberts' response to an editorial by Steven Moore in the Wall Street Journal.

1. How do you know that you are not reporting the same fatality multiple times?
For example if you were to ask people in the UK if they know anyone who has been involved in a traffic accident most would say they do. Applying your logic that means there are 60 million accidents every year.
Andrew M, London, UK

Les Roberts: That is an excellent question. To be recorded as a death in a household, the decedent had to have spent most of the nights during the 3 months before their death "sleeping under the same roof" with the household that was being interviewed. This may have made us undercount some deaths (soldiers killed during the 2003 invasion for example) but addressed your main concern that no two households could claim the same death event.

2. It seems the Lancet has been overrun by left-wing sixth formers.
The report has a flawed methodology and deceit is shown in the counting process. What is your reaction to that?
Ian, Whitwick, UK

LR: Almost every researcher who studies a health problem is opposed to that health problem. For example, few people who study measles empathize with the virus. Thus, given that war is an innately political issue, and that people examining the consequences of war are generally opposed to the war's conception and continuation, it is not surprising that projects like these are viewed as being highly political. That does not mean that the science is any less rigorous than a cluster survey looking at measles deaths. This study was the standard approach for measuring mortality in times of war, it went through a rigorous peer-review process and it probably could have been accepted into any of the journals that cover war and public health.

The Lancet is a rather traditional medical journal with a long history and is not seen as "left-wing" in the public health and medical communities. The types of different reports (medical trials, case reports, editorials) in the Lancet have been included for scores of years. The Lancet also has a long history of reporting about the adverse effects of war, and the world is a more gentle place for it.

3. Why is it so hard for people to believe the Lancet report?
I am an Iraqi and can assure you that the figure given is nearer to the truth than any given before or since.
S Kazwini, London, UK

LR: I think it is hard to accept these results for a couple of reasons. People do not see the bodies. While in the UK there are well over 1000 deaths a day, they do not see the bodies there either. Secondly, people feel that all those government officials and all those reporters must be detecting a big portion of the deaths. When in actuality during times of war, it is rare for even 20% to be detected. Finally, there has been so much media attention given to the surveillance-based numbers put out by the coalition forces, the Iraqi Government and a couple of corroborating groups, that a population-based number is a dramatic contrast.

4. Why do you think some people are trying to rubbish your reports, which use the same technique as used in other war zones for example in Kosovo?
Another group, which uses only English-language reports - Iraq Body Count - constantly rubbishes your reports. Again, why do you think that is?
Mark Webb, Dublin, Ireland

LR: I suspect there are many different groups with differing motives.

5. Can you explain, if your figures are correct, why 920 more people were dying each day than officially recorded by the Iraqi Ministry of Health - implying huge fraud and/or incompetence on their behalf?
Dan, Scotland

LR: It is really difficult to collect death information in a war zone! In 2002, in Katana Health Zone in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) there was a terrible meningitis outbreak, where the health zone was supported by the Belgian Government, and with perhaps the best disease surveillance network in the entire country. A survey by the NGO International Rescue Committee showed that only 7% of those meningitis deaths were recorded by the clinics and hospitals and government officials. Patrick Ball at Berkeley showed similar insensitivity by the press in Guatemala during the years of high violence in the 1980s. I do not think that very low reporting implies fraud.

6. As an analyst myself I would like to know how reliable the method itself actually is.
Les Roberts and his colleagues claim to have used the same method to estimate deaths in Iraq as is used to estimate deaths in natural disasters. Is there any evidence that the method is accurate? By this I mean a comparison of the number actual deaths after a natural disaster with estimates of the number of deaths.
Rickard Loe, Stockholm, Sweden

LR: That is a good question. There is a little evidence of which I am aware. Note that the 2004 and 2006 studies found similar results for the pre- and initial post-invasion period which at least implies reproducibility. I led a 30 cluster mortality survey in Kalima in the DRC in 2001. The relief organization Merlin did a nutritional survey and measured mortality in the same area and with a recall period that covered part of our survey. Both were cluster surveys, Merlin used a different technique to select houses and we obtained statistically identical results. In a couple of refugee settings, cluster surveys have produced similar estimates to grave monitoring.

In 1999, in Katana Health Zone in the Congo, I led a mortality survey where we walked a grid over the health zone and interviewed 41 clusters of 5 houses at 1km. spacings. In that survey, we estimated that 1,600 children had died of measles in the preceding half year. A couple of weeks later we did a standard immunization coverage survey (30 clusters of 7 children but selected totally proportional to population) that asked about measles deaths and we found an identical result.

I suspect that Demographic Health Surveys or the UNICEF MICS surveys (which are both retrospective cluster mortality approaches) have been calibrated against census data but I do not know when or where.

7. My understanding is that this study reports ten times more deaths attributable to the war than other studies because this is the only one to use statistical methods to make inferences about the mortality rate across the whole population.
Other studies only record verifiable deaths, which one would expect to constitute only a small part of the total number. Am I correct?
Matthew, Appleton

LR: Yes.

8. It seems to me that the timing of the publication of the 2004 and 2006 reports - in both cases shortly before a U.S. election - was a mistake.
Does Mr Roberts regret the timing of the release of the two reports or does he feel they achieved some benefit?
Mik Ado, London, UK

LR: Yes. Both were unfortunate timing. As I said at the time of the first study, I lived in fear that our Iraqi colleagues and interviewers would be killed if we had finished a survey in mid-September and it took two months for the results to get out. This notion has been widely misquoted as saying we wanted to influence the election..as if the two parties somehow had different positions on the war in Iraq. I think in Iraq, a post-election publication in 2004 would have been seen as my colleagues knowing something but keeping it hidden. It was also unfortunate that the attention span of the U.S. media is short during election seasons.

More detailed questions from Joe Emersberger

9. Lancet 2 found a pre-invasion death rate of 5.5/ per 1000 people per year. The UN has as estimate of 10? Isn't that evidence of inaccuracy in the study?

LR: The last census in Iraq was a decade ago and I suspect the UN number is somewhat outdated. The death rate in Jordan and Syria is about 5. Thus, I suspect that our number is valid. Note that if we are somehow under-detecting deaths, then our death toll would have to be too low, not too high. Both because a) we must be missing a lot, and b) the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent deaths is so high.

I find it very reassuring that both studies found similar pre-invasion rates, suggesting that the extra two-years of recall did not dramatically result in under-reporting..a problem recorded in Ziare and Liberia in the past.

10. The pre-invasion death rate you found for Iraq was lower than for many rich countries. Is it credible that a poor country like Iraq would have a lower death rate than a rich country like Australia?

LR: Yes. Jordan and Syria have death rates far below that of the UK because the population in the Middle-east is so young. Over half of the population in Iraq is under 18. Elderly populations in the West are a larger part of the population profile and they die at a much higher rate.

11. A research team led by physicists Sean Gourley and Neil Johnson of Oxford University and economist Michael Spagat have asserted in an article in Science that the second Lancet study is seriously flawed due to "main street bias.". Is this a valid, well tested concept and is it likely to have impacted your work significantly?

LR: I have done (that is designed, led, and gone to the houses with interviewers) at least 55 surveys in 17 countries since 1990.most of them retrospective mortality surveys such as this one. I have measured at different times, self-selection bias, bias from the families with the most deaths leaving an area, absentee bias..but I have never heard of "main street bias." I have measured population density of a cluster during mortality surveys in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Dem. Republic of Congo, and the Republic of Congo, and in spite of the conventional wisdom that crowding is associated with more disease and death, I have never been able to detect this during these conflicts where malaria and diarrhoea dominated the mortality profile.

We worked hard in Iraq to have every street segment have an equal chance of being selected. We worked hard to have each separate house have an equal chance of being selected. I do not believe that this "main street bias" arose because a) about a 1/4th of the clusters were in rural areas, b) main streets were roughly as likely to be selected, c) most urban clusters spanned 2-3 blocks as we moved in a chain from house to house so that the initial selected street usually did not provide the majority of the 40 households in a cluster and d) people being shot was by far the main mechanism of death, and we believe this usually happened away from home. Realize, there would have to be both a systematic selection of one kind of street by our process and a radically different rate of death on that kind of street in order to skew our results. We see no evidence of either.

12. In Slate Magazine, Fred Kaplan has alleged that:

"....if a household wasn't on or near a main road, it had zero chance of being chosen. And "cluster samples" cannot be seen as representative of the entire population unless they are chosen randomly." Is Kaplan's statement true?

LR: His comment about proximity to main roads is just factually wrong! As far as cluster surveys go, they are never perfect; however, they are the main way to measure death rates in this kind of setting. See the SMART initiative at www.smartindicators.org.

13. Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at King's College London in the U.K., says she "simply cannot believe" the paper's claim that 40 consecutive houses were surveyed in a single day. Can you comment on this?

LR: During my DRC surveys I planned on interviewers each interviewing 20 houses a day, and taking about 7 minutes per house. Most of the time in a day was spent on travel and finding the randomly selected household. In Iraq in 2004, the surveys took about twice as long and it usually took a two person team about 3 hours to interview a 30 house cluster. I remember one rural cluster that took about 6 hours and we got back after dark. Nonetheless, Dr. Hicks concerns are not valid as many days one team interviewed two clusters in 2004.

14. A recent Science Magazine article stated that Gilbert Burnham (one of your co-authors) didn't know how Iraqis on survey team conducted their work. The article also claimed that raw data was destroyed to protect the safety of interviewees. Is this true?

LR: These statements are simply not true; and do not reflect anything said by Gilbert Burnham! He's submitted a letter to the editors of Science in response, which I hope they will print.

15. A UNDP study carried out survey 13 months after the war that had a much higher sample size than both Lancet studies and found about 1/3 the numbers of deaths that your team has found. Given the much higher sample size shouldn't we assume the UNDP study was more accurate and that therefore your numbers are way too high?

LR: The UNDP study was much larger, was led by the highly revered Jon Pederson at Fafo in Norway, but was not focused on mortality. His group conducted interviews about living conditions, which averaged about 82 minutes, and recorded many things. Questions about deaths were asked, and if there were any, there were a couple of follow-up questions.

A) I suspect that Jon's mortality estimate was not complete. I say this because the overall non-violent mortality estimate was, I am told, very low compared to our 5.0 and 5.5/ 1000 /year estimates for the pre-war period which many critics (above) claim seems too low. Jon sent interviewers back after the survey was over to the same interviewed houses and asked just about <5 year old deaths. The same houses reported ~50% more deaths the second time around. In our surveys, we sent medical doctors who asked primarily about deaths. Thus, I think we got more complete reporting.

B) This UNDP survey covered about 13 months after the invasion. Our first survey recorded almost twice as many violent deaths from the 13th to the 18th months after the invasion as it did during the first 12 (see figure 2 in the 2004 Lancet article). The second survey found an excess rate of 2/1000/year over the same period corresponding to approximately 55,000 deaths by April of 2004(see table 3 of 2006 Lancet article). Thus, the rates of violent death recorded in the two survey groups are not so divergent.
Les Roberts Responds To Steven Moore Of The Wall Street Journal

Moore's editorial can be read here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

Distinction between criticism and fabrication regarding deaths in Iraq

I read with interest the October 18th editorial by Steven Moore reviewing our study reporting that an estimated 650,000 deaths were associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. I had spoken with Mr. Moore the week before when he said that he was writing something for the Wall Street Journal to put this survey in perspective. I am not surprised that we differed on the current relevance of 10 year-old census data in a country that had experienced a major war and mass exodus.

I am not surprised at his rejection of my suggestion that the references in a web report explaining the methodology for lay people and reporters was not the same as the references in our painstakingly written peer reviewed article. What is striking is Mr. Moore's statement that we did not collect any demographic data, and his implication that this makes the report suspect.

This is curious because, not only did I tell him that we asked about the age and gender of the living residents in the houses we visited, but Mr. Moore and I discussed, verbally and by e-mail, his need to contact the first author of the paper, Gilbert Burnham, in order to acquire this information as I did not have the raw data. I would assume that this was simply a case of multiple misunderstandings except our first report in the Lancet in 2004 referenced in our article as describing the methods states, ".interviewees were asked for the age and sex or every current household member."

Thus, it appears Mr. Moore had not read the description of the methods in our reports. It is not important whether this fabrication that "no demographic data was collected" is the result of subconscious need to reject the results or whether it was intentional deception. What is important, is that Mr. Moore and many others are profoundly uncomfortable that our government might have inadvertently triggered 650,000 deaths.

Most days in the US, more than 5000 people die. We do not see the bodies. We cannot, from our household perspective, sense the fraction from violence. We rely on a functional governmental surveillance network to do that for us. No such functional network exists in Iraq. Our report suggests that on top of the 300 deaths that must occur in Iraq each day from natural causes; there have been approximately 500 "extra" deaths mostly from violence.

Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's "30,000 more or less" figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.

 

Nice try but you didn't.

 

LOL....Please remind me what relevance that cherry-picked article has to do with anything?

 

A far more intensive peer reviewed survey was done and concluded one hundred fifty thousand violent deaths occurred vs your scam survey with the discredited author who refused to give up his raw data. That it is in keeping with most estimates and, as I said, it visited ten times as many households puts it in the more realistic category.

 

"Scam survey"...LOL....

 

"A way to do nothing and feel like you helped"

 

Pretty much. Take a look at the criticisms of it sometime rather than continually read and post what the obviously biased author says.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, I've actually posted criticisms none of which stand up. The Lancet is the most robust of them all - period. As I've stated on numerous occasions, the methodology was the same used in other conflicts around the world, the results of which were widely praised.. You just cannot handle the fact that it's 'our side' that's responsible for genocide.

 

Hardly. All you have done is defended the useless and raw data denied study and haven't yet addressed this other than tout it was a peer reviewed study so it must be valid right;

 

The Lancet is the most rigorous peer-reviewed study there is, the methodology of which has been used in previous conflicts where the results were widely praised without controversy, get over it.

 

Sir they won't release the methodology so how in the hell can it be peer reviewed???

 

I've already said that this is bullcrap.

 

Is not, "The Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS) was a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of 9345 households that was conducted by relevant federal and regional ministries in Iraq in collaboration with the World Health Organization"

Lancelet in 2006 " visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each."

Seems they leave a lot to be desired on their sampling, if they ever tell us what that data ever was.

 

Sorry, that's it. I can no longer take you seriously.

 

That's ok, I haven't taken you seriously since the last time you trotted out this garbage. Now, please take your dishonest Lancelet and trot off back to the echo chamber where it forms part of the sacred book of left wing worship.

 

This is blatantly false, Les Roberts was not the lead investigator the lead investigator was Dr. Gilbert Burnham, and he is the one who came up with the 600,000+ figure and has been sanctioned and John Hopkins refuses to provide the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing methodology, you are conflating two separate Lancet surveys.

You can continue to ignore the facts all you want but I will continue to post them:


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
&#9679;
Fax: (703) 683-2307
&#9679;
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!”).

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 source is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) the majority of deaths are caused by unknown actors IE criminals not coalition or anti-coalition forces; furthermore, your source blatantly lied when it stated that the majority of deaths were caused by airstrikes when the majority of deaths have been caused by 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

And according to my maths 70% is greater than 31%, and if they were killed by the U.S. and coalition forces it would not be unknown as to who was responsible, they were killed by criminals which coincides with the findings of the IBC which found that the overwhelming majority of reported deaths were the result of anti-coalition forces and criminals not coalition forces.

- - - Updated - - -

And you are not only lying you are trying to conflate two separate Lancet surveys.

Once again they will not release the methodology any assertion to the contrary is a blatant falsehood:


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
&#9679;
Fax: (703) 683-2307
&#9679;
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&#8217;s Code of
Professional Ethics and Practices
. It appears AAPOR took this
action in accordance with its
&#8220;Schedule of Procedures for Dealing with A
lleged AAPOR Code Violations,&#8221; 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&#8217;s policies regarding human subjects research, the School has suspended Dr. Burnham&#8217;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 &#8220;STONEWALLING/COVERUP&#8221; 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: &#8220;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 &#8220;the School has suspended Dr. Burnham&#8217;s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.&#8221;

But the Bloomberg School has not come clean with the problems of the research project. Their press release admitted that their internal review &#8220;did not evaluate aspects of the sampling methodology or statistical approach of the study.&#8221; Instead, Bloomberg asserts, &#8220;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.&#8221;

Let&#8217;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&#8217;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. &#8216;Mortality after the 2003 invasion of
Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey&#8217;. 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

 

Just give in to the left and say that there is nothing wrong with releasing the raw data only to one of your own people to make an 'independent' evaluation and then, just feel free to inflate the figures to a couple billion Iraqis dead. Heck, everybody except you me and Trout are dead the war was that terrible.

 

To your discredit Les Roberts was not the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing author of the 2nd lancet survey for the last (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time, the author was Doctor Gilbert Burhnam and he has since been sacked and sanctioned for that survey by John Hopkins and John Hopkins refuses to release the methodology for independent investigation:

AAPOR investigation of the 2nd Lancet survey

On February 3, 2009, the Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced that an 8-month investigation found the author of the 2006 Lancet survey, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, had violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics & Practices for repeatedly refusing to disclose essential facts about his research. "Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association&#8217;s Standards Committee.[53][54] AAPOR's President, Richard A. Kulka, added:

"When researchers draw important conclusions and make public statements and arguments based on survey research data, then subsequently refuse to answer even basic questions about how their research was conducted, this violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research. These concerns have been at the foundation of AAPOR&#8217;s standards and professional code throughout our history, and when these principles have clearly been violated, making the public aware of these violations is in integral part of our mission and values as a professional organization."[55]

AAPOR subsequently released a more detailed list of eight specific pieces of information Burnham failed to disclose after repeated requests. These include a copy of the survey questionnaire in all languages into which it was translated, the consent statement, information of sample selection methodology and a summary of the disposition of all sample cases.[56]

Neither Dr. Burnham nor the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health are members of AAPOR. Tim Parsons, public affairs director of the Bloomberg School wrote in an official statement that the school was "not in a position to comment" on AAPOR's findings because the school is not a member of the organization and "does not know what procedures or standards were followed in reaching the decision regarding this study." Parsons also noted that the school was nearing completion of its own investigation into the study.[57]

At least one article has been written critical of AAPOR's decision to censure Burnham. Debora MacKenzie, writing in New Scientist, said "There is no direct evidence that the latest attack on Burnham is politically motivated," but the APPOR's stated purpose, "to ensure survey-based research meets high standards," has itself "been questioned by experts." which MacKnenzie does not name.[58]

According to New Scientist's investigation... Burnham has sent his data and methods to other researchers, who found it sufficient. A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research. The "correct forum", it says, is the scientific literature.

According to MacKenzie, "Burnham's complete data, including details of households, is available to bona fide researchers on request." She further noted that the AAPOR's own journal, Public Opinion Quarterly, "published an analysis of Burnham's Iraq survey by David Marker of Westat, a consultancy in Maryland that designs surveys."[58]

The American Statistical Association has subsequently written in support of the actions taken by AAPOR, saying: "We are aware that, in taking this action, you have subjected yourselves to some criticism. On behalf of the American Statistical Association, we wish to recognize AAPOR for following procedure and acting professionally on such a difficult and divisive matter. In so doing, you eloquently express by your actions the goals stated in your Code."[59]

On February 1, 2010, The Bloomberg School and Dr. Burnham were named for the "STONEWALLING/COVERUP&#8221; award in iMediaEthics' 2010 Top Ten "Dubious Polling" Awards, based largely on the AAPOR censure. The authors David W. Moore and George F. Bishop, write that Bloomberg and Burnham received the award, "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," saying, "AAPOR asked for the kind of information that any scientist doing this type of work should release ... 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&#8217;t have the information it needs for a definitive assessment. Sounds like a cop-out and a Catch 22, all rolled into one!"[60]
Johns Hopkins Investigation of the 2nd Lancet survey

In February 2009 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published the results of an internal review of the study.[61] The review found that researchers in the field used data collection forms that were different from those approved in the original protocol. The forms used in the field contained spaces for names of respondents or householders and many such names were collected, in violation of the protocol. The press release said the review did not find evidence that any individual was harmed as a result of these violations, and that no identifiable info was ever out of the possession of the researchers. As a result of their investigation, Hopkins suspended Dr. Burnham&#8217;s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.

The press release also discussed an examination of all the original data collection forms:

"An examination was conducted of all the original data collection forms, numbering over 1,800 forms, which included review by a translator. The original forms have the appearance of authenticity in variation of handwriting, language and manner of completion. The information contained on the forms was validated against the two numerical databases used in the study analyses. These numerical databases have been available to outside researchers and provided to them upon request since April 2007. Some minor, ordinary errors in transcription were detected, but they were not of variables that affected the study&#8217;s primary mortality analysis or causes of death. The review concluded that the data files used in the study accurately reflect the information collected on the original field surveys."

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




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
&#9679;
Fax: (703) 683-2307
&#9679;
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&#8217;s Code of
Professional Ethics and Practices
. It appears AAPOR took this
action in accordance with its
&#8220;Schedule of Procedures for Dealing with A
lleged AAPOR Code Violations,&#8221; 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&#8217;s policies regarding human subjects research, the School has suspended Dr. Burnham&#8217;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 &#8220;STONEWALLING/COVERUP&#8221; 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: &#8220;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 &#8220;the School has suspended Dr. Burnham&#8217;s privileges to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.&#8221;

But the Bloomberg School has not come clean with the problems of the research project. Their press release admitted that their internal review &#8220;did not evaluate aspects of the sampling methodology or statistical approach of the study.&#8221; Instead, Bloomberg asserts, &#8220;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.&#8221;

Let&#8217;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&#8217;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. &#8216;Mortality after the 2003 invasion of
Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey&#8217;. 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

 

You're simply lying the Lancet survey is so flawed that the lead investigator Doctor Gilbert Burnham has been officially sanctioned by John Hopkins and they refuse to release the methodology for analysis.

 

You haven't engaged with any of the substantive issues I've raised in my posts on this issue. You are merely a ideologue - brainwashed moron who has shifted the goalposts everytime I've caught you out. Like your right-wing soulmate, you initially praised the absurd IBC before I debunked them and now you shift again. So genius explain to this forum why the Lancet methodology was regarded as just fine and dandy during various conflicts in the world that were not political hot potatoes as far as our side was concerned but hey presto all of a sudden then became so in Iraq? You are letting ideology get in the way of objectivity.
Your childish mis-naming of the Lancet is why I cannot take you seriously. This is an adult forum. But I'll continue regardless..Genuine questions do of course remain about how many people have died in Iraq. So let me turn to your latest deflection. The Iraqi Ministry of Health study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) to which you refer, estimated the death toll from the time of the invasion in March 2003 until June 2006. (Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, ‘Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006,’ January 9, 2008; http://content.nejm.org/ cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782)

Journalists have focused on NEJM’s estimate of 151,000 dead by violence, noting that it is lower than that offered by the 2006 Lancet study, which estimated 655,000 excess deaths from all causes. Les Roberts observes that the two articles have more in common than appears at first glance.

"The NEJM article found a doubling of mortality after the invasion, we found a tripling. The big difference is that we found almost all the increase from violence; they found half the increase from violence.” (Stephen Fidler and Steve Negus, ‘Post-invasion death toll in Iraq put at over 150,000,’ Financial Times, January 10, 200

The deaths-by-violence in the latest survey remained the same from year-to-year, which is highly unlikely - all observers agree that violent deaths rose sharply in 2005 and 2006. It is possible that respondents attributed deaths to nonviolent causes in order to avoid attracting the attention of the Iraqi government and security forces. The excess mortality implied by the new study is close to 400,000. Given that the survey period ended in 2006, a continuation of the same death rates would give a toll, today, of close to a million - in line with the Lancet.

The IFHS study is identical to both Lancet studies in one key respect - it suggests that an appalling humanitarian catastrophe has taken place in Iraq under US-UK occupation. This, in the end, is the point that matters.

 

No matter how many times you repeat your lies and distortions, it doesn't make them true.

 

Guess you didn't read my quote. Here it is yet again;

I'm not the one clinging to a flawed study that has it's authors in disgrace when all other findings agree on the numbers save the one that won't release it's raw data. As for being a moron, insults are the last refuge of a losing argument.

 

You are lying. Burnham wasn't the lead investigator.

 

I read it, the rationale underpinning the 151,000 figure remains the same as my post made clear. WE ARE talking about the same survey. The different publisher is irrelevant. Try sticking to my argument. I know it's difficult for you. You love to deflect don't you? The study is not flawed, it's your arguments (if you can call them that) that are. Now will you kindly answer my question?