One shouldn’t gloat but…
There were actually two studies done by the same Soros funded group of “researchers”. I did fourteen posts on the first study back in 2004-2005, and I demolished its conclusions using simple methodological arguments that you did not need a degree in statistics to understand. The study was so bad and so transparently wrong that you didn’t need to understand anything about statistics or epidemiological methodology, you just needed to know a little history and have a basic concept of scale.
In my very first post on the subject I predicted that:
Needless to say, this study will become an article of faith in certain circles but the study is obviously bogus on its face.[emp. added]
That prediction proved true. Leftists all over the world not only accepted the 600% inflated figure without hesitation but actively defended the study and its methodology. I confidently made that prediction almost exactly 6 years ago because I was even then beginning to understand a factor in leftists’ behavior: they are nearly completely controlled by delusional narrative
A self-delusional narrative drives almost all leftists’ thought and distorts their understanding of history and ongoing events. The bogus Lancet/John-Hopkins study resulted solely from the same type of “atrocities” delusional narrative employed against America in the Vietnam era.
I think the leftists’ arguments in support of the 2004 bogus study demonstrates in microcosm how leftists cannot intellectually or emotionally process data that conflicts with the narrative. In this, I would argue they exhibit the same behavior as the pathologically religious. It is simply that they have substituted their own intellects for the divine. Just as the pathologically religious won’t accept scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrative of their faith, leftists cannot accept any scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrative about the intellectual and moral superiority of leftists.
Leftists around the world simply knew, as if by divine revelation, that the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study must be true because the study fit and reinforced the narrative of America’s evil and the left’s heroic role in combating that evil. The narrative required that America be slaughtering vast numbers of Iraqis just like the Vietnam narrative required the same thing WRT Vietnamese.
The same narrative’s needs drives the left’s complete and wholly uncritical acceptance of the idea that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been absolutely proven. They can’t accept that anthropogenic global warming might just be something we need to keep an eye on. No, it is absolutely proven without a doubt that it not only exists but will result in a catastrophe that will kill billions and render extinct half of all life on earth. If global warming is a minor long-term problem, it doesn’t provide much basis for a heroic narrative does it?
As always with these delusional narratives, the leftists who hold them never pay the price of their delusions, it is always someone else. The people of Vietnam and Cambodia paid the horrible price of the “peace” movement’s delusions, not the actual members of the “peace” movement and certainly not the leadership. The people of Iraq and American soldiers paid the price for the delusional narrative of which the bogus Lancet/Johns Hopkins study was a part. The study was used as propaganda by the worst actors in the war. It boosted their morale and hopes of victory, and thereby extended the length and increased the intensity of the conflict, which cost thousands of lives.
Meanwhile, the people who conducted the study and hurried it into publication won accolades and increased professional standing…
… and all that time they thought they were the ones with both scientific integrity and genuine humanitarian concerns. You can’t get more dangerously delusional than that.
Thinking upon that, I really can’t gloat. I like to think that maybe my own post on the subject did some little good, but I can’t be sure and, more importantly, I shouldn’t have had to make the effort. The Lancet, Johns Hopkins and the credentialed scientists should have never have allowed this study to enter the public arena.
I wouldn’t have been in a position to prove myself correct if our scientific institutions hadn’t been subverted in the first place.