Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis

"the Lancet report's lead author Gilbert Burnham"

and;

"Wednesday, February 3, 2009 -- The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Tuesday that an 8-month investigation found that Dr. Gilbert Burnham violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics & Practices.

AAPOR found that 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. In particular, the AAPOR inquiry focused on Burnham's publication of results from a survey reported in the October 2006 issue of the journal Lancet. When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused."

- - - Updated - - -

Then if we agree the figure is 150,000 then all is good and, the Lancelet is toast.

 

As far as your last point is concerned, try re-reading my post. Clearly comprehension isn't your strong point...LOL.

As for the first, the issue of Burnham is a sideshow as he wasn't the main guy.

 

So here is the post again, just for your benefit. What a patient and understanding guy I am. Now this time, concentrate:

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.

 

The author of the study. A nobody. Now, rather than play at insults, read my post - 150,000 with ten thousand households visited and in line with all other studies vs the Lancelet which has only one thousand households, a secretive methodology which will not allow for raw data to be checked and, is way out to lunch on it's numbers.

 

Les Roberts is the main guy. The Lancet is peer-reviewed. Everybody knows it except ideologues:

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and are you finally going to get around to answering my question?

 

150,000 vs 650,000.

Lancelet

"Of these deaths, we estimate that 601,027 (426,369–793,663) were due to violence."

 

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 became so with Iraq?

- - - Updated - - -

I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend it....LOL.

 

As is the Iraq Family Health Survey, even people who call others morons while avoiding the fact that key people who write studies they agree with are completely dishonest, almost as dishonest as the studies themselves which lack in samplings and refuse to release raw data.

What was your question?

 

Never mind Drew. Calm down and take it easy.

 

I never liked Pink Floyd, and if a member of that band wants to admire Islam and follow Nazism, let him have it.

Read this -

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez 2008

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world..

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ......

 

Republican logic=islam and obama are nazis
(Someone claims israelis are like nazis) = ANTI SEMITE!!! Terrorist sympathizer!!!!!..

Hypocrisy at its finest...also there bible claims jews aren't really jews...but that definately isnt anti- semetic at all...

 

MGB , their early stuff with Syd Barrett was good, but there is something about this Waters dude that rubs me up the wrong way.

 

I shall bless you with and answer from the cerebral master, the genius - myself.

Because unlike this politically charged survey, they were not funded by a left wing billionaire, their numbers were based on reality and they were not hiding their data. In short, they were at one time honest but not in this case.

Lancelet;

"Of these deaths, we estimate that 601,027 (426,369–793,663) were due to violence.""

Iraqi Family Health Survey;

"It estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence"

You need a pen and paper?

So, we can then agree that one hundred fifty thousand deaths were due to violence?

- - - Updated - - -

Might want to apply that to the guy calling others morons and genius. Or do what our joo hating pal does, smoke a doobi.

 

Sorry Drew, but if you are not prepared to refer to their correct name, I'm not gong to play. It's just childishness in the extreme.

I wondered when you were going to bring up the Soros canard. Now, I'm really going to have fun with you.

This emanated as a result of a smear campaign by The National Journal in 2008, the most serious attack of which involved Professor John Tirman, Executive Director and Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies (MIT). Munro and Cannon who executed the hatchet job 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 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.

But now consider these allegations in light of comments by John Tirman:

"Open Society Institute funded a public education effort to promote discussion of the mortality issue. The grant was approved more than six months after I commissioned the survey, and the researchers never knew the sources of funds. As a result, OSI, much less George Soros himself, had absolutely no influence over the conduct or outcome of the survey. This was told to the authors of the National Journal article at least twice. One must conclude that their misrepresentation of this---among many other issues---was intended to sensationalize their version of the story and color the readers' opinion about 'political bias.' This is contemptible malpractice on their part. It is also a grotesque injustice to Mr. Soros, whose philanthropy has braced and enlivened whole regions of the world." ( January 15, 200

In other words, the fact that the study was “funded by antiBush partisans” was completely irrelevant. There was literally no story, no fire, here - the smoke was an illusion.

Lancet II co-author Gilbert Burnham responded to the Wall Street Journal editorial:

“The fact that some of MIT’s financial support in 2006 came from the Open Society Institute had no effect on these reports; the researchers knew nothing of funding origins. MIT played no role in the study design, implementation, analysis or writing of the Lancet report.” (Burnham, ‘Researchers Respond to National Journal Article,’ letter submitted to the editors of the National Journal, January 7, 2008; http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/ research/iraq/national_journal.html)

Lancet II was commissioned in Oct 2005, with internal funds from the Center for International Studies at MIT. Tirman points out:

“I have checked my correspondence with OSI to make sure. I first approached them with an email on January 25, 2006. They made a grant to us of $46,000 on May 4, 2006.” (ibid)

He has added elsewhere:

“The funds for public education (not the survey itself) came from the Open Society Institute in the following spring, long after things had started. Burnham did not know this (Roberts was not much involved at this point.) MIT was providing funds, that's all he knew or needed to know. There were other small donors involved too. I told this to Munro on the telephone and in an email. He nonetheless implied that Soros money had funded the survey from the start, possibly at Soros' behest. That is a disgraceful lie, and Munro knows it.” (‘John Tirman on Munro and Soros,’ Deltoid blog, January 11, 200

Munro and Cannon also suggested that Soros had knowledge of the report and was keen for it to appear before the 2006 US mid-term elections. Under the sub-heading “Partisan considerations,” they wrote:

“Soros is not the only person associated with the Lancet studies who had one eye on the data and the other on the U.S. political calendar.” (op. cit)

Did Soros in fact have an “eye on the data”? Tirman again:

“It is extremely doubtful that Soros ever knew anything about this survey. The grant was approved by his large foundation staff. For OSI, it’s a small grant.” (Tirman, ’Bombs Away - The Anatomy Of A Hatchet Job,’ note t48; http://www.johntirman.com/Bombs Aw ay%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pdf)

Did Munro and Cannon check with Soros? Certainly they provided no evidence at all that he knew of the report or was in some way following its progress.

The point links to the claim that the Lancet II authors were seeking to influence the US 2004 presidential and 2006 mid-term elections, the implication being that they were anti-Bush and so were “partisan” in their science. Munro and Cannon commented:

“Roberts was hardly the only American to lose confidence in Bush. The question is whether he and his team lost their objectivity as scientists as well.” (op. cit)

They also wrote that, in a “much more troubling admission”, Roberts “said that he had e-mailed the first study to The Lancet on September 30, 2004, ‘under the condition that it come out before the election.’ Burnham admitted that he set the same condition for Lancet II. ‘We wanted to get the survey out before the election, if at all possible,’ he said.” (op. cit)

The reference to a “much more troubling admission” suggested there was something new here. But in fact the same criticism was made in 2005. A June 23, 2005 editorial in the Washington Times derided the 2004 Lancet study as an “egregious politicization of what is supposed to be an objective and scientific journal”. The editors explained:

“We're referring to the Lancet's role in trying to influence the U.S. presidential election with a cynical ‘study’ of deaths in the Iraq war in October.” (Leader, ‘The Lancet’s Politics,’ Washington Times, June 23, 2005)

Les Roberts’ responsed:

“We finished the survey on the 20 Sept [2004]. If this had not come out until mid-Nov. or later, in the politicized lens of Baghdad (where the chief of police does not allow his name to be made public and where all the newly trained Iraqi soldiers I saw had bandanas to hide their faces to avoid their families being murdered...) this would have been seen as the researchers covering up for the Bush White House until after the election and I am convinced my Iraqi co-investigators would have been killed. Given that Kerry and Bush had the same attitude about invading and similar plans for how to proceed, I never thought it would influence the election and the investigators never discussed it with each other or briefed any political player.”

The point is a simple one - the Lancet authors were keen for their studies to appear before US elections, but for ethical rather than political reasons. This is a million miles from aspiring to publish in order to unseat Bush. And it is further still from the possibility that such an aspiration generated biased science that went undetected by the Lancet’s rigorous peer-review system. As Gilbert Burnham put it:

“I doubt any Lancet paper has gotten as much close inspection in recent years as this one has!" (Burnham, email to Media Lens, October 30, 2004)

Again, the National Journal claim was based on nothing - a nothingness that has been eagerly embraced and boosted by media in both the US and Britain.

Refutations of the rest of the National Journal’s criticisms can be viewed here: http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee /research/iraq/lancet_mortality_response.html

John Tirman has provided a user-friendly demolition here:
http://www.johntirman.com /Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pdf

So Drew, now that I've debunked your Soros theory, I ask again, why do you think that the Lancet methodology became such a hot political potato in relation to Iraq when previously their methodology was widely praised in relation to other conflicts?

Game, Set and Match.

 

Your links don't bring me to the pages you cite. Please correct it and, while you do, please show Soros didn't contribute anything to these people to conduct this survey and then, we can get onto the meat of the matter which is .

Lancelet;

"Of these deaths, we estimate that 601,027 (426,369–793,663) were due to violence.""

Iraqi Family Health Survey;

"It estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence"

 

That's not how it works. The onus is on you to prove it. In any case, my post was detailed and extensive. You've been busted.....LOL.

 

Your links don't work so as far as I'm concerned you fabricated all your quotes. Very bad form Trout.

 

I copied and pasted most of this post from our previous debate on this. We are covering familiar ground in as much as I busted you then over the spurious Soros allegations. The links were working at that time but have obviously been removed since, such is the obvious embarrassment for all concerned. In any case, refutations of the rest of the National Journal’s criticisms can be viewed here: http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee /research/iraq/lancet_mortality_response.html

John Tirman has provided a user-friendly demolition here:
http://www.johntirman.com /Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pd f

That's all you need to know. Besides which the onus is on you to prove that he did which you won't be able to do.

- - - Updated - - -

I copied and pasted most of this post from our previous debate on this. We are covering familiar ground in as much as I busted you then over the spurious Soros allegations. The links were working at that time but have obviously been removed since, such is the obvious embarrassment for all concerned. In any case, refutations of the rest of the National Journal’s criticisms can be viewed here: http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee /research/iraq/lancet_mortality_response.html

John Tirman has provided a user-friendly demolition here:
http://www.johntirman.com /Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pd f

That's all you need to know. Besides which the onus is on you to prove that he did which you won't be able to do.

 

Anyway, it's 6 am here and I need some sleep....Night night.

 

Anti-War Billionaire George Soros Funded Iraq Study

"Page Not Found"

"Page not valid"

Riiiight.

Anyhow, we know he financed this survey to some degree. It has less than honest disclosure than the Iraq Health Survey, is not even close in results than the nearest survey, has a disgraced lead author and had only ten percent of the samplings as the survey I cited which was also peer reviewed and, actually allowed for it's raw data to be looked at by independent parties.

If you find any links to support your stuff let me know, in the meantime, think I'll go find a half decent debate somewhere.

 

Night. Sleep well, maybe Soros will order one of his minions to fund a study to get you some links to support your stuff or something.

 

The difference being that the Mexicans are neither refugees nor are they forbidden to leave and return. Is this really the best you can offer?

 

No mention of the IDF use of human shields? Why might that be, I wonder?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1...&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:83&tx=119&ty=41
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635

 

The links I posted work for me. At the end of the day, you are unable to support your contentions with anything substantive. All you have are unsubstantiated smear jobs on individuals. You are fed propaganda and like a sponge you soak it up because you are an ideologue.

 

FoxNews.....LOL...

In any case, refutations of the rest of the National Journal’s criticisms can be viewed here: http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee /research/iraq/lancet_mortality_response.html

John Tirman has provided a user-friendly demolition here:
http://www.johntirman.com /Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pdf