Showing posts with label LANCET. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LANCET. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

IRAQI GOVT. REFUSES TO RELEASE NUMBER OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

Just like the Bush regime, the Maliki government in Iraq refuses to release numbers of civilian casualties for the last few months. The BBC reports today that the United Nations Mission in Iraq complains that the Maliki regime is stonewalling on its number of civilian deaths and injuries for the last three months.

So both Bush and Maliki want to keep this information from the public. Bush publicly criticized the Lancet/John Hopkins numbers released last year that counted about 650,000 Iraqis killed since the Bush invasion in March 2003. I wrote on this subject on March 27, 2007, indicating that researchers compiled numbers based on scientifically acceptable principles. Now Maliki is saying that reports of Iraqi casualties are exaggerated, at the same time as his regime refuses to release its own figures.

Both Maliki and Bush are trying to keep the truth from the rest of the world that the Iraq War is going badly. Bush continues to say that we are better off with Saddam Hussein gone. How can he still maintain this position in light of almost one million Iraqi deaths? I doubt even Saddam Hussein killed as many people as has George Bush's war.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

LANCET/JOHN HOPKINS SURVEY OF IRAQI CASUALTIES

When the press such as The Guardian reported the Lancet study on the number of civilian casualties in October 2006, the world was shocked by the number estimated, approximately 655,000. Yet at that time, both the U.S. and the U.K. tried to cast doubt on the validity and accuracy of the numbers, claiming that they were inflated and exaggerated. Owen Bennett-Jones writes for the BBC World Service:

"Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate. He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole. President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report." ""

Now Owen Bennett-Jones reports in the BBC World Service that the British Government at that time had cause to believe that the Lancet/John Hopkins study of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq was based on scientific methodology and rigorous statistical sampling. The BBC has secured a memorandum written by the chief scientific adviser of the U.K. Ministry of Defense in which the scientific adviser says the survey's modus operandi was "robust" and "best practice":

"The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

Another U.K. official admits at the time of the report's publication that, despite the official belittling by Blair and Bush, the study "could not be rubbished."