Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273 
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 12th, 2008, 08:45 PM
How the New England Journal of Medicine Undercounted Iraqi Civilian Deaths
By ANDREW COCKBURN
Almost five years into the destruction of Iraq, the orthodox rule of thumb for assessing statistical tabulations of the civilian death toll is becoming clear: any figure will do so long as it is substantially lower than that computed by the Johns Hopkins researchers in their 2004 and 2006 studies. Their findings, based on the most orthodox sampling methodology and published in the Lancet after extensive peer review, estimated the post-invasion death toll by 2006 at about 655,000. Predictably, this shocking assessment drew howls of ignorant abuse from self-interested parties, including George Bush ("not credible") and Tony Blair.
Now we have a new result complied by the Iraqi Ministry of Health under the sponsorship of the World Health Organization and published in the once reputable New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM) estimating the number of Iraqis murdered, directly or indirectly, by George Bush and his willing executioners at 151,000--far less than the most recent Johns Hopkins estimate. Due to its adherence to the rule cited above, this figure has been greeted with respectful attention in press reports, along with swipes at the Hopkins effort as having, as the New York Times had to remind readers, "come under criticism for its methodology."
Weekend Edition
January 12 / 13, 2008
Gross Distortions, Sloppy Methodology and Tendentious ReportingJanuary 12 / 13, 2008
How the New England Journal of Medicine Undercounted Iraqi Civilian Deaths
By ANDREW COCKBURN
Almost five years into the destruction of Iraq, the orthodox rule of thumb for assessing statistical tabulations of the civilian death toll is becoming clear: any figure will do so long as it is substantially lower than that computed by the Johns Hopkins researchers in their 2004 and 2006 studies. Their findings, based on the most orthodox sampling methodology and published in the Lancet after extensive peer review, estimated the post-invasion death toll by 2006 at about 655,000. Predictably, this shocking assessment drew howls of ignorant abuse from self-interested parties, including George Bush ("not credible") and Tony Blair.
Now we have a new result complied by the Iraqi Ministry of Health under the sponsorship of the World Health Organization and published in the once reputable New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM) estimating the number of Iraqis murdered, directly or indirectly, by George Bush and his willing executioners at 151,000--far less than the most recent Johns Hopkins estimate. Due to its adherence to the rule cited above, this figure has been greeted with respectful attention in press reports, along with swipes at the Hopkins effort as having, as the New York Times had to remind readers, "come under criticism for its methodology."
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
January 13th, 2008, 01:17 AM
British backtrack on Iraq death toll
By Jill Lawless; Published: 27 March 2007
Excerpt:
The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.
The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.
The whole article here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2396031.ece
-------------------------------------
That means that only about 54 000 died non-violent deaths. That amazes me! I would have thought that through deprivation of food, medicine, clean water, adequate living quarters etc. far more would have died, especially infants, small children, the elderly, pregnant women and those who are not wholly healthy anyway.
To be fair one should actually start counting from the start of the first Gulf War and the ensuing embargo right up to 2003.
British backtrack on Iraq death toll
By Jill Lawless; Published: 27 March 2007
Excerpt:
The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.
The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.
The whole article here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2396031.ece
-------------------------------------
That means that only about 54 000 died non-violent deaths. That amazes me! I would have thought that through deprivation of food, medicine, clean water, adequate living quarters etc. far more would have died, especially infants, small children, the elderly, pregnant women and those who are not wholly healthy anyway.
To be fair one should actually start counting from the start of the first Gulf War and the ensuing embargo right up to 2003.
Council Member
Posts: 2,299
January 13th, 2008, 02:02 AM
While researching for the above topic, I came upon an enlightening book review with some very remarkable facts. Title of the book is....
Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health By Meredith P. Fort, Mary Anne Mercer, Oscar Gish
I quote:
Global "emergencies" to which the US responds provide ample opportunities for expansion of the empire. Having occupied Japan after the Pacific War, US troops remain in Japan today. 37 000 US troops remain in Korea. The Cold War over, US troops remain in Europe. Since the 1990s, the number of US bases around the world has been rapidly accelerating.
Following its 1991 bombing of Iraq, the US wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emerites.
Following its bombing in Yugoslavia, the US wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the US established military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.
The Social Production of Disease
etc.; very worthwhile to read!!! I hope you all will.
Here is the link .....
http://tinyurl.com/36zu28
good night!
While researching for the above topic, I came upon an enlightening book review with some very remarkable facts. Title of the book is....
Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health By Meredith P. Fort, Mary Anne Mercer, Oscar Gish
I quote:
Global "emergencies" to which the US responds provide ample opportunities for expansion of the empire. Having occupied Japan after the Pacific War, US troops remain in Japan today. 37 000 US troops remain in Korea. The Cold War over, US troops remain in Europe. Since the 1990s, the number of US bases around the world has been rapidly accelerating.
Following its 1991 bombing of Iraq, the US wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emerites.
Following its bombing in Yugoslavia, the US wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the US established military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.
The Social Production of Disease
etc.; very worthwhile to read!!! I hope you all will.
Here is the link .....
http://tinyurl.com/36zu28
good night!
