Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?

Okay. You know yesterday I was talking about David Kane's 'rebuttal' of the Lancet study? I take that back now, on the sayso of these statisticians.Alice in Wonderland and the Lancet study — Crooked TimberIt sounds as though he was making a fundamental error, and for whatever reason is refusing to acknowledge it.I am very angry that there are people out there who might have been pursuaded by his illogical arguement that has been propogated all over the net by pro-war types.I'm still interested in your point - that if the 92% holds for the 98000 (or was it the subsequent 655000?) sample, then does that mean we should expect 92% of the excess deaths to have death certificates?

I know - I know. I somehow, I keep getting surprised. I get more and more depressed that genuine debate actually seems impossible. Maybe I just like that feeling of righteous anger - but that probably isn't healthy.As for the thread, I realised that this thread was a better place to discuss this - the other one is a direct repeat.So basically - apart from all these people making random assertions, I don't see any compelling reason why the study isn't robust. If anyone sees anything interesting they should put it in this thread.Incidentally, I was quite tickled how this thread was left hanging - with an 'I'll get back to you'.

This is interesting. A new survey estimates over a million deaths in Iraq as a result of the war. Let the rebuttals ring out, and quash this grubby, cynical manipulation of truth for sordid left-leaning ends!

So... I've been patiently awaiting any additions to this topic, and there haven't been any. Not just from evc-ers, but from people generally. If you do a blog search, it turns up one or two random asserters, but nothing very much.The oddest thing is this. Remember ORB from my last post? They said they were going to revise their findings in the light of rural areas to see how that would change the data, and not a sausage from them for weeks, when they suggested it would be up within days. I wonder why this is? Edited by Tusko, : for clarity mentioned ORB

Hello,Can I ask where the information in this table is derived from please?Danke!

Thanks for that - I'm just being lazy. I was particularly interested in the Darfur figures - which are phenomenal. Not fun.

What I want to know is approximately how many people have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, this is proving a very difficult number to come by; or more accurately, it is exceedingly easy to come across many fantastically different figures.Of necessity, my interest has turned from the elusive number itself to the various studies: to the merits and deficiencies of the official Iraqi estimate, to the two Lancet investigations, and to the ORB questionnaire and Iraq Bodycount.With regards to the ORB poll, I am annoyed by the fact that they haven't provided the further information on the rural areas as they prominently state on their website will be forthcoming in early October 2007. Though it frustrates me, we are only in a position to speculate as to this delay.Thank you for the offer of information pertaining to the deaths of local nationals and the trends in the northeast quarter of Baghdad - however, I am only interested insomuch as it might grant me an understanding of the post invasion mortality across the nation as a whole.This issue has clearly become very politicised, an unreadable palimpsest of competing voices, and an actual answer to this question seems further away than ever. This leaves me gnashing my teeth with frustration.

Hey, there are lots of fun blog posts from the last couple of days with titles like:The Death Blow For Lancet Iraq War Casualty Study; Data Bomb: The Lancet and Lancet II Iraq Dead Are Bogus; and my personal favourite: British Medical Journalism: Corrupted by Hatred of the Iraq War.They are responding to this article in something called The National Journal, which I'm not familiar with. I haven't seen anybody stepping forward to defend the Lancet studies from this (if the various anti Lancet bloggers are to believed) series of deadly body blows.I'll be interested to see what happens next.Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

As I understand it, the two studies were setting out to achieve different ends: WHO - violent deaths; Lancet - excess deaths. I'm not sure about this though because from what I understood of the Lancet, a high proportion of deaths seemed to be violent. I will have to have a look at this.

Oh, maybe actually it isn't. I'm getting really tired of this - I just don't understand enough about statistics so I just have to take people's word for it.