Comments on: BBC: Lancet study on Iraq credible, advised top UK government scientist

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:38:59 +0000

The media reports what the hospitals and the police find. Are the hospitals and police missing 90% of the bodies? That’s a lot of bodies lying about.

I already posted a link to this, but I’ll just briefly quote what Hamit Dardagan et al. said has to be true for the Lancet study to be right:

- On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
- Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
- Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:56:27 +0000

Iraq Body Count is a database of deaths reported in the media. It’s a passive study (it relies on information flowing to the researcher) and it provides, by definition, a total number of those killed that has been reported in the media.

The Johns Hopkins study was a statistical report using an established methodology (no precedents were set) that was used in other theatres of war - with no objections. The number they come up with may be unbelievable, the number will also be wrong (within margins), but the approach suggests that the numbers killed since the US/UK invasion far exceed the numbers reported in the media.

Given the number of bodies turning up each morning, it’s no criticism of the media to say that they can’t report them all.

But perhaps they’ll get ten per cent?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:04:49 +0000

You don’t have to necessarily present a conclusive alternative figure to realize that the Lancet figure just doesn’t make sense — not according to the rate of deaths being reported there by morgues, police, observation, etc… Where are all these missing bodies?

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:52:19 +0000

What people seem to ignore is that there is no alternative estimate. Neither the US nor the UK would have trouble paying for one, but they ‘don’t do body counts’ of course. Iraqbodycount is a record of deaths confirmed by multiple sources - to take that as an estimate of the total misunderstands the concept - it’s not a total, it’s an absolute bare minimum designed to concusively disprove any lower estimates. If their figure were the total, that would mean that every violent death was reported in more than one source - hardly likely in place like occupied Iraq. For a total, there is no other figure than the Lancet’s. If you dispute it, that’s just placing hope above judgement unless you have an alternative. Which you don’t.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:48 +0000

Based on the year I was there, mostly spent tracking death tolls, I still don’t think the Lancet study is credible. Also, the folks at Iraqbodycount, who don’t strike me as apologists for the occupation were pretty forcefully in their skepticism over the study:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

they estimate around 66,000, my guess it’s about twice that. While I think journalists/health officials may be missing half or even two thirds of the casualties — they aren’t missing 90%. This means there was an average of over 500 people dying a day across three years of war… including during that first year when violence was at a very low level. The rates may well be that now, but not in 2003.

Perhaps the methodology is sound, but the number doesn’t make sense. Not compared to what people observed there for the last four years.