Friday, January 4, 2008
Experts are still combing over the data and methodology behind that infamous and widely criticized Lancet report on casualties in Iraq. A new article has been published by National Journal: Data Bomb. Michael Rubin posts one of the authors' summaries at The Corner:
George Soros funded the survey. The U.S. authors played no role in data-collection, and did not apply standard anti-fraud measures. The chief Iraqi data-collector had earlier produced medical articles to help Saddam’s anti-sanctions campaign in the 1990s, and said Allah guided the prior 2004 Lancet/Johns Hopkins death-survey. Some of the field surveyors were employed by Moqtada Sadr’s Ministry of Health. The Iraqis’ numbers contain evidence of fakery, and the Lancet did not check for fakery.
Dean Esmay has posted the YouTube of Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton on a political rant: Indicting The Lancet on Iraq
Click to share this post
ma.gnolia | Reddit | Newsvine | Furl | Google
Spurl | Yahoo | Blink List | Connotea | Feed Me
Simpy | Linkroll | Blogmarks | Sphere | Technorati
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Lancet's Fraud.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/13921
3 Comments
Leave a comment to: The Lancet's Fraud
Comment Info and Policy:
1) You must have Javascript enabled in your browser in order to comment (blame the spammers). If you don't know what that is, you're probably fine.
2) HTML is on, so basic html should work. Raw links will be made auto-clickable, too, so even if you don't know html you can just paste in the link and it should work fine. Keep the "http://" in it.
3) Comments are generally unmoderated, which means I don't necessarily agree with the tone and tenor of everything posted. In fact, sometimes people post things they don't really mean just to make other people look bad. The internet is an anonymous place for the most part. That said...
4) I welcome you to post here. I'd love to have your input, agree, disagree or just offer a different data point, really. If I didn't want any participation, I'd turn off comments. Be aware, however, that this blog and the comments section exist for my entertainment. Therefore, I reserve ALL RIGHTS here, including the right to remove any or all comments on nothing more than a whim. Please don't even bother complaining. I'm the one providing the space and the free news and thought buffet. I don't owe anyone anything.
Anyone who posts here will be treated as my guest. That means I'm happy to be polite as a default, but if anyone is rude to the host they'll be unceremoniously shown the door.
It may pay to recall a famous line from the Tom Selleck magnum opus, Mr. Baseball: "Jack-san, you want Yoji's advice about the babes, you come to Yoji with respect."
5) Enjoy your stay!
Without having looked at the original article itself a few things that come to mind are:
1) In most scientific journals the author(s) have to disclose any financial or corporate ties they may have.
2) Often, they must also cite the source of their funding for the research (this one is a bit less common)
3) Is The Lancet peer-reviewed?
It is peer-reviewed, though, according to the article, the process was "rushed" in order to make it to publication in time for the presidential election.
jaws:
Another point, it seems to me, is that a reputable study should be willing to make its raw data available to outsiders. (That way people can see if the data collection methods make sense, if statistical errors were made in reaching the conclusions, and so forth.)
From what I read, the Lancet folks have consistently refused to share their raw data. That ought to make anyone suspicious.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline