Posted on 01/13/2008 8:05:55 AM PST by Son House
Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He could be involved with sinking the stock market as well.
Someone got THAT close.
The study found exactly what this evil man wanted it to find. It is a typical fixed study.... a specialty of “research groups” and Universities.
do I really have to say it???
Tell you what you want to hear, take your money, sounds familiar.
Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
Reminds me of Clinton’s “there’s no evidence”.
It wasn't a count, it was an extrapolation. And did you actually read the report? The first report (2004) guessed at a range of 8,000 - 194,000 killed with a 95% probability that the correct number fell with that range. That is a WORTHLESS range. The second report in 2006 was equally piss poor with a broad range, i.e. extrapolated guess.
The actual count today is about 80K killed and that is mostly by the insurgency. In the year 2006 the coalition killed approximately 526 civilians and in 2005 the coalition killed approximately 350 civilians.
So yes, the Lancet report is complete political junk.
BE INFORMED: IRAQ BODY COUNT
.
He is about old enough to take a dirt nap.
I hate Liars.
I REALLY Hate Liars that, by their actions, Negatively affect otherwise GOOD real results!
That f%$@&n bastard Soros needs to be deported out of this country. Or put on trial for Treason.
In the case of soros, about 60 years too late.
The actual count today is about 80K killed and that is mostly by the insurgency. In the year 2006 the coalition killed approximately 526 civilians and in 2005 the coalition killed approximately 350 civilians.
Great respect for the civilian life came from our Military, Soro’s suppling money to make them look bad is just another fraudulent Attempt to get Democrats elected.
Soros lied, people died.
The NEJM researched nearly 10,000 homes in Iraq, compared with under 1500 for the Lancet.
I do not necessarily agree with either, but this shows that no one really knows the actual count, but it sure appears the Lancet report was highly exagerrated. Keep in mind, the NEJM is no fan of the war and no fan of the administration, yet they came up with a number 75% less then the Lancet.
And, of course, the vast majority of the deaths in both reports were attributed to terrorists (called insurgents in the reports).
Um, it is laughable to suggest that peer review guarantees validity. Especially in the two Lancet published studies when the publicized comments of the one reviewer included statements to the effect that the lack of details in the report could be obscuring significant over-estimation of deaths.
The latest study was shockingly weak. Once again, they did exactly zero primary investigation (i.e., actually looking for, examining, and determining cause of death of individuals). All the study teams did was survey individuals about deaths in their households. There was no independent confirmation of any sort. The interviewers were eight Iraqis. There were exactly zero independent observers.
The team claimed to have seen death certificates representing over 90% of the deaths they personally tracked. If they really had surveyed representative households, that would imply (to support the 650,000 dead number) that over 550,000 death certificates had been issued. Yet the Ministry of Health (and Baghdad morgue) has issued only about 50,000 certificates.
Further, the investigative team have destroyed at least some of the records of how they conducted their survey (it's not clear how much), preventing any evaluation of their methods by independent researchers. They also have refused to release all of their raw data for independent review.
One man’s funding is another man’s bribery. Guess which one Soros did?
Faux News trying to redeem itself?
***and the hippy-dippy sheeple on the left will lap it up like a fat broad drinking out of a gravy boat.**
LOL
I haven’t yet read this....but figured you’d be interested, Cal.
You don't get banned by being naive or ignorant. Or absolutely wrong. Where did you come up with the assertion that researchers don't care where their financial support comes from? Where do you think the human-caused global warming lunacy comes from? I know reviewers and they review manuscripts for the data included in them. They do not question fundamental issues such as Who was paying for the project. Thats the editor's job and they serve at the pleasure of the publisher. Many prominent journals have helped foster one hoax or another.
So let's say a thousand civilian dead have occurred in Iraq. Isn't that a crime to kill civilians? Or do we cover it up and say "collateral damage?"
Well I suppose it all depends on who killed them? Further, if they provided cover and allowed AQ or sunni guerrillas to hide among them and then caught some shrapnel are they truly "civilian"? Because AQ and the "insurgents" refuse to wear uniforms arent they all "civilian" deaths? This is what the editors at Lancet should have been asking
As I imagine you should know its called War for a reason. Trying to manipulate the US policy by foisting bad data at a critical time is not above the pinkos at Lancet.
You do for being a troll. He's gone.
LOL!! Good job.
;)
Well, the study WAS peer-reviewed. But as clinton might say, it depends what you mean by “peer.”
In this case, it means leftist flakes much like the authors of the article in question. Academia is stuffed full of leftists, and regretably that is now often true of science and medicine as well as the humanities.
In our own country, the New England Journal of Medicine is supposed to be the most prestigious in this field, just as the Lancet is in England. Yet the New England Journal of Medicine has been in the forefront of spreading the Culture of Death. It’s clearly a deliberate policy. They are among the earliest and most persistent advocates of abortion, euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide, fetal stem cell research, and all the rest of the program.
And of course every article is peer-reviewed, by likeminded editors and readers, carefully chosen for their known leftist views.
Well said.
I personally had a run-in with a Soros funded (anti-war) project. I went right after the donee rather than the donor and their scheme dried right up before it got started-too far. I think the donee was rather surpised that I was on to it right away. Never let your guard down.
“He could be involved with sinking the stock market as well”
there is no doubt, that is part of their strategy, to make the Republicans look bad. Bad economy, high energy prices makes people mad and equals lost Republican votes.
Good work!
Just another liberal who desperately needs a high death count in Iraq to justify his existence as a "progressive." Most normal people would be over joyed to find out that the report and death count was bogus. But not liberals.
Any number put out by any organization identified as left-wing is always suspect. Just like the numbers of homeless in America and the numbers of women beaten by their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday this Iraq war dead number is a crock. Leftists can't print the truth to save their lives.
Thanks ;)
I don't understand this fear of the number of Iraqi war dead.
I believe our soldiers are the best in the world, if they kill them, they deserve to be dead.
We should celibrate the number dead.
Better a 100,000 terrorists dead than only 25,000 dead.
The Lancet Report was an alleged civilian count. In this sense, we want as few killed as possible. See my post #12 with figures of civilians killed by the coalition.
Better luck next time ;)
It was not a study. It was historical fiction
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.