Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti War Billionaire George Soros Funded Iraq Study
FOXNEWS.COM ^ | Sunday, January 13, 2008 | FOXNEWS.COM

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anti; billionaires; enemypropaganda; funded; fundingtheleft; george; lancet; soros
Conned out of his money, because Soros can't win on his ideas being valid either.
1 posted on 01/13/2008 8:05:59 AM PST by Son House
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Son House

He could be involved with sinking the stock market as well.


2 posted on 01/13/2008 8:08:01 AM PST by Perdogg (Huckabee got his foreign policy from IHOP, McCain got his immigration policy from The Waffle House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House

3 posted on 01/13/2008 8:08:15 AM PST by FReepaholic (This tagline could indicate global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
This study is about as objective as a Michael Moore documentary. It's thumb-sucking propaganda, bought and paid for, and the hippy-dippy sheeple on the left will lap it up like a fat broad drinking out of a gravy boat.


4 posted on 01/13/2008 8:10:14 AM PST by Viking2002 (Waterboarding the Left every chance I get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
It always breaks my heart when I see that photo of Soros getting creampied.

Someone got THAT close.

5 posted on 01/13/2008 8:10:36 AM PST by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House

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.


6 posted on 01/13/2008 8:10:41 AM PST by Seruzawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
Image hosted by Photobucket.com do I really have to say it???

7 posted on 01/13/2008 8:10:59 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
Anti War American Billionaire George Soros Funded Iraq Study

There, fixed it!
8 posted on 01/13/2008 8:16:12 AM PST by Beckwith (Dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Seruzawa

Tell you what you want to hear, take your money, sounds familiar.


10 posted on 01/13/2008 8:17:36 AM PST by Son House (Protection For Opportunity Seekers And Tax Payers From Congress Spending: Low Tax Rates !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse

Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.

Reminds me of Clinton’s “there’s no evidence”.


11 posted on 01/13/2008 8:20:44 AM PST by Son House (Protection For Opportunity Seekers And Tax Payers From Congress Spending: Low Tax Rates !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse
"Geez, I don't want to be banned, but the Lancet's study was peer reviewed and quite valid..."

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

.

12 posted on 01/13/2008 8:24:39 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Son House

He is about old enough to take a dirt nap.


13 posted on 01/13/2008 8:31:02 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House

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.


14 posted on 01/13/2008 8:32:45 AM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha (Smoke clears and Fred Thompson is President))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

In the case of soros, about 60 years too late.


15 posted on 01/13/2008 8:33:24 AM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha (Smoke clears and Fred Thompson is President))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: avacado

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.


16 posted on 01/13/2008 8:34:15 AM PST by Son House (Protection For Opportunity Seekers And Tax Payers From Congress Spending: Low Tax Rates !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Son House

Soros lied, people died.


17 posted on 01/13/2008 8:34:52 AM PST by Larry Lucido (Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; Just A Nobody
Ah-HA!
18 posted on 01/13/2008 8:53:02 AM PST by Allegra (AACCK! Back in Iraq...how'd that happen so fast??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
Well, the New England Journal of Medicine will be reporting in the Jan 2008 edition that the violent death count is only about 1/4 what the Lancet reported back in 2006.

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).

19 posted on 01/13/2008 9:05:15 AM PST by technomage (Radical Islam gives me the urge to go to the bathroom and drop a big mohammed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse
... the Lancet's study was peer reviewed and quite valid.

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.

20 posted on 01/13/2008 9:06:00 AM PST by Brujo (Quod volunt, credunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Son House

One man’s funding is another man’s bribery. Guess which one Soros did?


21 posted on 01/13/2008 9:09:33 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Oh, the huge manatee!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House

Faux News trying to redeem itself?


22 posted on 01/13/2008 9:10:26 AM PST by wastedyears (This is my BOOMSTICK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

***and the hippy-dippy sheeple on the left will lap it up like a fat broad drinking out of a gravy boat.**

LOL


23 posted on 01/13/2008 9:10:51 AM PST by wastedyears (This is my BOOMSTICK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I haven’t yet read this....but figured you’d be interested, Cal.


24 posted on 01/13/2008 9:11:42 AM PST by nicmarlo (I hereby declare my support for Duncan Hunter. 1/10/08; late to the party, but I have arrived!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse; Son House; avacado; Brujo
Geez, I don't want to be banned, but the Lancet's study was peer reviewed and quite valid.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The Lancet's Data Bomb Debunked for Good

25 posted on 01/13/2008 9:12:49 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse
Geez, I don't want to be banned, but the Lancet's study was peer reviewed and quite valid. The investigators don't care where the money comes from, and it would be unethical to bend the results based upon the funding.

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.

26 posted on 01/13/2008 9:13:06 AM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: corkoman
You don't get banned by being naive or ignorant.

You do for being a troll. He's gone.

27 posted on 01/13/2008 9:20:52 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator

LOL!! Good job.


28 posted on 01/13/2008 9:27:41 AM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

;)


29 posted on 01/13/2008 9:28:33 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator

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.


30 posted on 01/13/2008 9:40:29 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Well said.


31 posted on 01/13/2008 9:43:06 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Son House

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.


32 posted on 01/13/2008 9:44:48 AM PST by PaRepub07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“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.


33 posted on 01/13/2008 10:16:27 AM PST by PaRepub07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
"You do for being a troll. He's gone."

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.

34 posted on 01/13/2008 10:29:14 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
"objective"

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.

35 posted on 01/13/2008 10:33:08 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Thanks ;)


36 posted on 01/13/2008 10:41:44 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Son House
Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

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.

37 posted on 01/13/2008 10:45:40 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
Aw, man, I hate it when I'm not IBTZ. LOL


38 posted on 01/13/2008 10:46:45 AM PST by Viking2002 (Waterboarding the Left every chance I get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
"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.

39 posted on 01/13/2008 10:59:57 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

Better luck next time ;)


40 posted on 01/13/2008 11:12:44 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Thanks for the link!
41 posted on 01/13/2008 11:44:04 AM PST by Brujo (Quod volunt, credunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Son House

It was not a study. It was historical fiction


42 posted on 01/13/2008 12:01:43 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Moveon is not us...... Moveon is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
Arrest Soros and the rest of his treasonous partners for spreading enemy propaganda.
43 posted on 01/13/2008 12:03:44 PM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson