Another discussion of the Lancet Survey, entirely gakked
Yet the figures are based on 'cluster samples', and two thirds of the deaths are said to have resulted from taking one 'cluster sample' in Fallujah. That is, that the surveyors asked people in Fallujah how many people had died in their family, and they then incorporated that with all the other data and extrapolated to calculate a figure for the whole of Iraq.
Any realistic researcher, on finding that their figures relied almost entirely on one cluster sample out of many, (but not nearly enough for accurate figures, which is another issue), would have asked themselves, can this be a real figure? But they obviously didn't do so, because here's how you can tell immediately that this is NOT a real figure.
Suppose for a moment that two thirds of the deaths in Iraq happened in Fallujah, which is what this seems to be saying. That would mean that 945,000 x 2/3 = 630,000 people died there. Isn't that a catastrophe? No, it's a falsification, because the pre war population of Fallujah was 375,000.
--- but if we try to work out how it is that so many men have died (and in the central region it's said to be 10%, not 7%) then we note that there are only 375,000 x 1/2 = 187,500 MEN in Fallujah, and for enough to have died to support the figure given for MEN in Iraq, then 187,500 people have died 630,000 times; that's 3.36 deaths for each man in Fallujah.
Now at this point, isn't it appropriate to ask, how it was that these 'statistics' were gathered?
By asking Arabs in Fallujah (of whom by their own report there are none left) how many of their relatives died. Well, they are bound to be truthful, aren't they? They've got a massive grievance. No one disputes that Fallujah was the centre of a lot of the resistance to the occupation. Is it really so hard to believe that they would inflate the death figures out of a desire to harm the reputation of the invader? Or did each of their men really die 3.36 times?
This survey bears no relation to reality, and the merest attempt to investigate it shows that this is so. What it also shows, is that the Lancet team didn't think to check their figures in this trivial manner; they just accepted them without further thought. I submit that this is a level of incompetence that is willful. Because it took me less than five minutes to work it out. They knew that the deaths quoted in their survey nearly all came from Fallujah. They should have investigated further. They obviously didn't, because the above is such a simple way to check. They asked people who bore a grudge, they didn't think to check the honesty of their account, and they didn't think to check their own arithmetic. Then they put this survey out to the world as if it meant anything.
Since 1.3% of the population of Iraq lived in Fallujah at the start of the war, then if we discount the figures from Fallujah and suppose that all the others are accurate (which we have no reason to suppose they might be, given what happened in Fallujah), then the rest of the data from this survey shows that the death figures for 98.7% of Iraq are three times lower, 315,000 men. Rounding up for Fallujah, that makes 319,148. That would be a tragedy, of course. But seriously, what reason have we to suppose that lies only emanate from Fallujah? The whole survey is shown to be based on accepting the word of those who have a grievance, never checking it, and imagining the impossible as a result.
It is said that 10% of men in the central region have died. Well let's suppose that these are mainly from the fighting age group, about one third of the male population. That means that about 30% of the fighting men are dead. Now let's ask, if that is the case, how many are injured? Army veterans can advise what figures would be realistic for injuries given the level of fatalities. Shall we say three times as many? In that case, we would find that 30% of men of fighting age were killed, and 90% were injured, a casualty rate of 120%. Well that ought to stop the fighting! Does anyone find that remotely credible? Instead, we have to ask why it is that hundreds of thousands of deaths have gone unrecorded in Iraq, unreported by the media, unknown to the authorities, why hundreds of thousands of people who have been injured have never turned up at hospital, and why the media have not previously picked up on this problem.
There's a simple reason for it. Because the problem does not, on this scale, exist. It's a fantasy woven by the Lancet out of the lies of the aggrieved - and it could only be accepted by them on the basis of wishful thinking and a blatant disregard for the need to check their arithmetic, let alone the need to check the truthfulness of their sources.
So on the basis of the above arithmetic, this survey proves certain things:
- That people in Fallujah lied to the researchers
- That the researchers made no attempt to check the truthfulness of their sources
- That the researchers didn't make arithmetic checks on the viability of what was said to them
- That people in Fallujah have a bigger grievance than those elsewhere in Iraq
- That there is no reason to suppose that the figures reported anywhere in Iraq are accurate.
So the world is being fed statistics that do not face the most trivial of investigation, by people with an agenda to do 'research' that has no validity, and can trivially be shown to be untrue; and the media are either incapable of unpicking such trivial inaccuracies, or have no interest in trying to do so.
19th October 2006.