And I suppose you know of other peer-reviewed research that used the same methods, yet came to vastly different conclusions?
The only reason it was reported was that the claims were so outlandish that it was embraced by Galloway and Clark.
Total nonsense. The research was reported because its methods were extremely strong - strong enough to pass peer review and be published in The Lancet - one of the world's most prestigious academic journals.
Strawman, heal thyself. You cited three months of that study. Again, I reiterate that such a study could not have sampling points. That would be a survey, something very different.
Holy crap! You obviously don't know even the most basic facts about this paper. Would you at least go read up on this research before you try to critique it?
Congrats. You admit to two release dates of the same report.
Wrong. Again. There were two different papers, using two different sets of data, and covering two different time periods. You just cannot be this stupid (you can, however, be this much of a liar).
And I repeat for the 6th time, do you and Ron Turd believe there were 1,000+ violent deaths in Iraq per day?
Of course not. To arrive at that number I would have to believe that the 655,000 deaths occurred during a much shorter period of time than they actually did. Only you have accepted that time frame, and you did so for dishonest reasons.
And, of course, I now have my answer. The Lancet never reported that the U.S. and Israel were behind 9/11. Like everything else in this thread, you made that up on the spot.
Vastly different? The reports show a much lower number than the 655,000 (1000+ killed per day). That's an absurd number and only morons would believe that.
The research was reported because its methods were extremely strong - strong enough to pass peer review and be published in The Lancet - one of the world's most prestigious academic journals.
Prestigious? Do you work for Lancet or have a family member there? No other study has even come close to that number and the Lancet study is a farce. Even Amnesty International (no friend to the US, West, Israel) disputes the number. It was based on faulty and perhaps slanted research.
Would you at least go read up on this research before you try to critique it?
I have and you can't have it both ways: was the study a survey or an analysis? Simply put, it was an analysis.
There were two different papers, using two different sets of data, and covering two different time periods.
Honey, you're just plain sad. This is the same report reported at two different times. There were no sets of data (no sampling strata). You are so blind that you can't see that there can't be time periods since this was not a survey.
To arrive at that number I would have to believe that the 655,000 deaths occurred during a much shorter period of time than they actually did. Only you have accepted that time frame, and you did so for dishonest reasons.
Excuse me, but you must have had the worst math teacher in the world. 655,000 in either time frame would range from 700-1000+ deaths per day. Do you have any shred of credibility left?
And for the 7th time, do you and Ron Turd believe there are 1,000+ violent deaths in Iraq per day?