Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Collected Links Re: The Lancet Article on Iraqi Civilian Casualties

    Posted by Jonathan on November 4th, 2004 (All posts by )

    Number Gut (Shannon Love, May 17, 2005)

    ILCS vs LIMS (Shannon Love, May 14, 2005)

    Study Supports Shannon’s Suspicions (Ginny, May 14, 2005)

    Cluster Sampling and LIMS: Part 1 (Shannon Love, April 12, 2005)

    Lancet Letters Part II (Shannon Love, Mar. 30, 2005)

    Lancet Letters (Shannon Love, Mar. 30, 2005)

    Lancet Update (Jonathan, Mar. 29, 2005)

    Those who Beseige Shannon & the Schiavo Tragedy (Ginny, Mar. 25, 2005)

    Eroding Science’s Brand (Shannon Love, Mar. 25, 2005)

    Compare and Contrast (Jonathan, Mar. 24, 2005)

    A Challenge to Lancet Defenders (Shannon Love, Mar. 24, 2005)

    Fisking Falluja (Shannon Love, Mar. 22, 2005)

    A Lie in a Lab Coat (Shannon Love, Mar. 21, 2005)

    Worse Than Nothing At All (Shannon Love, Nov. 10, 2004)

    The Madness of Methods (Shannon Love, Nov. 2, 2004)

    Judging Methodology (Shannon Love, Nov. 1, 2004)

    The Lancet and the Iraqis (Ginny, Oct. 30, 2004)

    Scientific Malpractice (Shannon Love, Oct. 30, 2004)

    Bogus Lancet Study (Shannon Love, Oct. 29, 2004)

     

    5 Responses to “Collected Links Re: The Lancet Article on Iraqi Civilian Casualties”

    1. James R. Rummel Says:

      Good job, Jonathan.

      I should also point out that Shannon should read her Boyz Email account. Unless she’s had a chance to get in there lately, I sent her some messages and I’m not sure she’s seen them.

      James

    2. Sean Says:

      see this Guardian article and Richard Horton’s comments about politicizing science.

      http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1345400,00.html

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Sean, thanks.

    4. CounterPundit Says:

      Born to Run

      Indeed, there seems to be two tactics here. The first is to claim, without any proof or standing, that any science that makes Republicans look bad (global warming, the Lancet study) is politicized; the second is to ignore it when science is in fact p…

    5. w sol vason Says:

      The only accurate way to count dead people is to count the bodies. People lie, corpses don’t.

      People lie to interviewers conducting surveys because they are afraid or angry or have something to gain or something to lose or just out of boredom.

      They tell the truth, in surveys, when the answer means nothing to them. A US middle class non-academic citizen will have no problem looking at two pieces of carpet and saying which he prefers.

      But ask a north Korean if he loves the Dear Leader and is ready to die for him and he will always answer “yes! yes! yes!”. Ditto for cubans in cuba re Castro.

      Ask a Sunni in Falujah a question designed to cause american troop withdrawals and you will get the answer you want.

      There was more wrong with the Lancet study than sampling problems. The research technique was wrong, the interviewers who asked the questions biased the answers by their very presence and who they were, and the questionnaire was wrong.

      The only thing the researchers did right was to make sure they got paid in American dollars.