I'll begin on a personal note: I work 5 days a week with scientists in multiple fields; Material science, biodiversity, finance and economics, bioinformatics, astronomy, and various social sciences. I am not a scientist but, I am familiar with many of the basic principles of science and its methods. This study is not science. It's trash. But don't take my word alone, here's some of the methods used:
For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.
1,850 households with 12,800 residents. No information on the demographics of the residents (for example, were 18% adults who considered themselves "head of household"?). How many were over 18 yrs of age? under? HOW MANY WERE INTERVIEWED? DOESN'T SAY!!!
Even the NYT interviews Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy who says:
the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country
And later,
Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had "a tone of accuracy that is just inappropriate."
Another interesting point which isn't intended to minimize the importance of a single death but, merely marginalize the value of this study (courtesy Gateway Pundit):
- The AP reported that 2,660 people were killed this month in Iraq
- But, according to this study, you'd expect 22,800
Finally, you shouldn't discount the fact that the same group released a similar study just before the 2004 elections in which it claimed 100,000 Iraqi deaths. It was roundly criticized (even by Slate!). Now, is it any surprise they release a study just before the 2006 elections!?
No comments:
Post a Comment