Article

2004-10-29 Iraq-Jordan

Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths Since War

Time to calibrate the bullshit meter. Just in time for the election too.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.
No baby ducks?!?! Surely there's a flaw in the analysis!!
The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities. "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

JH SPH is a respectable place, but that doesn't mean they can't get real political from time to time. Big problem with schools of public health is that all the big public health issues -- sanitation, disease, slaughterhouses, vaccinations -- have been figured out, so there's less to do in a day.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Roberts told Reuters. The report came just days before the U.S. presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.

Near-NYT impeccable timing.

Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports ~~not to mention the shredding machine~~ but the researchers described what they found as shocking. The new figures are based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq in September 2004. They compared Iraqi deaths during 14.6 months before the invasion in March 2003 and the 17.8 months after it by conducting household surveys in randomly selected ~~non-Kurdish~~ neighborhoods. Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370. By comparison about 849 U.S. military were killed in combat or attacks and another 258 died in accidents or incidents not related to fighting, according to the Pentagon. The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the deaths. "What we have evidence of is the use of air power in populated urban areas and the bad consequences of it," Roberts said. Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, said U.S. military action in Iraq was "very bad for Iraqi ~~baby ducks~~ civilians. We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations."

After we kill the jihadis the need for air strikes should decline.

The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths. They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war. Before the war the major causes of death were ~~torture~~ heart attacks, ~~starvation~~ chronic disorders and ~~Uday~~ accidents. That changed after the war.
Sure. I can buy that...if you count Saddam Hussein as a chronic disease.
Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes. "Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Roberts added in the study.

Sure Generalissimo, and why don't you tell us how? You know you want to.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq. "But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq -- in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," Horton said in an editorial.

CBC has more of the story if you care.

Posted by Steve White (assist to Rafael) 2004-10-29 12:09:04 AM|| || Front Page|| [11144 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I call Bullsh*t! I call shenanigans!

Posted by Tibor 2004-10-29 12:44:33 AM|| 2004-10-29 12:44:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The methodology is about as sound as estimating the level of teenage sex by asking adolescent boys how often they got layed.

Otherwise, I recall from WW2 data it took on average 10+ bombs to kill one civilian. I realize bombs have got a lot more accurate, but that should reduce civilian deaths and I don't believe many bombs are being used - < 10 per week? I can only conclude that either some completely new effect is at work or those interviewed are lying their heads off.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-29 12:52:29 AM|| 2004-10-29 12:52:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I just voted -1 (dump the article about this) at a very liberal site. This crap comming out just before the election is pure crap. I posted that we actually line up 1000's of Iraqis everyday and machine gun them just for fun. I added they have missed all the baby ducks, kittens and puppies we kill.

I think if you look on Lancest's site this is not published.

I smell fecal matter and it's comming from my left. This is desperation by the left in europe who just now get it. We don't hate Bush like they do. The German publication BILD just came out and endorsed Bush. That paper is the largest circulation in Germany and europe.

Europe fears Bushes relection. Another reason to vote for him.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-29 1:11:55 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-29 1:11:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The study is here - reg required.

A couple of points. Death rate in Kurdish sample has fallen dramatically. Excluding Fallujah the study found 21 violent deaths, of which 6 persons were identifiably women or children (< 15 years old). I know enough about statistics that you can't reliably extrapolate from 6 data points.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-29 1:26:32 AM|| 2004-10-29 1:26:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq."

"Because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq", my ass: it was fast-tracked for publication so it would appear at the optimum time for influencing the U.S. election.

If it weren't so despicable, the "medical dhimmitude" in this would be funny: here we have a bunch of doctors rushing like mad to churn out Democratic Party campaign-ad material, all for the purpose of electing a medical-malpractice attorney as our Vice President.

Way to go, shitheads.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-29 1:46:39 AM|| 2004-10-29 1:46:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 From CNN

The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated Press he wanted it that way.

"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea," Les Roberts from Johns Hopkins told AP."

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-29 1:51:47 AM|| 2004-10-29 1:51:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Just out of morbid curiosity (snark, snark), what would be the perfect number of civilian deaths?

Posted by mojo 2004-10-29 2:07:50 AM|| 2004-10-29 2:07:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 This is the key quote from the study

data do not show evidence of widespread
wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%) involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire.
In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed might have been a combatant. In a second case, a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American
soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the adverse consequences of their use of force. The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-29 2:35:15 AM|| 2004-10-29 2:35:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Grumpy Uncle Sam TROLL 2004-10-29 3:30:01 AM|| 2004-10-29 3:30:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja."

Haven't had time to read the report beyond the intro, but a simple calculation here suggests that 66,000 abnormal deaths are deemed to have occurred amongst the people living in the vicinity of 30 households in one part of Falluja? Tell me I've got the wrong end of the stick...

Posted by Bulldog 2004-10-29 4:29:29 AM|| 2004-10-29 4:29:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 All the MSM are carrying this and none mention the (for me) most interesting (and statisticaly - read scientific) valid part of their study which is the Kurdish death rate dropped dramatically. The authors predictably gloss over this, but it seems to be a huge 60%, much larger than the non-Fallujah increase they found.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-29 7:20:26 AM|| 2004-10-29 7:20:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 A statisticaly significant fact 95% of all statistics are invalad. Mostly because they are pulled out of the statisticians backside becaue they are trying to support their own agenda and are biased as hell to whit:
"The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated "I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea,"â¦

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-29 8:09:55 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-10-29 8:09:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm waiting for Modern Bride to release their expose on Iraqi and Afghan wedding disruptions.

Posted by Tom 2004-10-29 8:23:47 AM|| 2004-10-29 8:23:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Lets see:100,000/17.8=????
naught,naught,double naught=5617.97/month.Figures don't lie,but liars can figure.This "study"is a crock!

Posted by raptor 2004-10-29 8:46:05 AM|| 2004-10-29 8:46:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 100,000 deaths my ass. If that were happening, the MSM would have been all over it all the time, what with 100,000 greiving families to exploit, etc.

There were hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, all right - we're still exhuming the bones from mass graveyards, with no help from the Euros - but they were killed BY SADDAM.

However, since the conscienceless clowns of both the MSM and this report apparently approved of his "presidency," while they disapprove of the presidency of the man who freed 50 million people from slavery, that doesn't get brought up much.

I'm with you guys - I call bullshit AND attempt to influence our election. These people are what they project onto George Bush - evil.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-29 9:11:31 AM|| 2004-10-29 9:11:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I call bullshit -- and another attempt to sway the election to a U.N. toadie (Kerry).

We have to get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-10-29 9:29:09 AM|| 2004-10-29 9:29:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 A statisticaly significant fact 95% of all statistics are invalad.

LOL!

38% Pie Chart
31% Bar Graphs
16% 3-D Bar Graph
9% Cartensian Primatives
4% Other
2% Other other

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-29 9:45:19 AM|| 2004-10-29 9:45:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Fallujah contains less than 1% of Iraq's population. If two thirds of the violent deaths reported by the 990 subject households were in Fallujah, then Fallujah households were either disproportionately represented to an absurd degree, or the rate of violent death was very low to non-existent in those outside Fallujah. In the former case, the projection of these figures onto the entire population is unwarranted, even ignoring the probable bias of anecdotal accounts from that source. In the latter case, the claimed result is mathematically impossible.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-29 9:47:16 AM|| 2004-10-29 9:47:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 To further clarify, if two thirds of the violent deaths in a representative sample occurred in Fallujah, then two thirds of the derived figure of 100,000 would also have to have occurred in Fallujah. Otherwise the sample is simply not representative. I don't think that even the jihadists have claimed anything like 67,000 civilian deaths in Fallujah.
You can bet your last dollar, though, that every Chomskyite in the country will be quoting these figures by the end of the day.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-29 9:52:50 AM|| 2004-10-29 9:52:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 #2 Phil wrote: The methodology is about as sound as estimating the level of teenage sex by asking adolescent boys how often they got layed.

Damn that's good! Can I quote you on that?

Posted by eLarson 2004-10-29 10:02:30 AM|| 2004-10-29 10:02:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 100.000 civilians eyh? Mmmmh, the Bushian liberation goes well then, just 23.900.000 to go.

Posted by Murat 2004-10-29 10:27:09 AM|| 2004-10-29 10:27:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Bwahahahahaha!

Good to have that humor back, Rat. Where you been? Fallujah?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-29 10:33:06 AM|| 2004-10-29 10:33:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Murat's watching his country go down the shithole. And it's everyone else's fault.

Posted by BMN 2004-10-29 10:48:53 AM|| 2004-10-29 10:48:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Armenian Genocide, Murat.

Those numbers, unlike these, are real. When you can admit your nation's guilt, then you'll have a little bit of standing in discussing how trustworthy these numbers are.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-10-29 10:58:23 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-10-29 10:58:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 In keeping with the spirit of the article, mangling numbers cuz it makes you feel all warm and runny (h/t Martin Mull), here are a couple of fun websites with pointless / meaningless graphs - almost as funny as this article:

one38
SatireWire Charts

Posted by .com 2004-10-29 11:14:02 AM|| 2004-10-29 11:14:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Does that number also include those who make the pilgrimage to Mecca and don't make it back because of stone throwing incidents,stampeding etc..

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-10-29 11:20:30 AM|| 2004-10-29 11:20:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 I miss SatireWire.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-10-29 11:21:16 AM|| 2004-10-29 11:21:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Amen, Sea. I check it every couple of months. Only across the board humor rival Scott Ott ever had - excepting Allah's targeted routine. Mucho Heavy Sigh.

Posted by .com 2004-10-29 11:26:09 AM|| 2004-10-29 11:26:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Oxblog has a link to a skeptical look at these numbers. No real in depth analysis yet, the usual guys who would do it are obsessed with some missing explosives, for reasons I honestly cant fathom. Somebody at Human rights watch has already said these numbers are way to high.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-29 3:12:20 PM|| 2004-10-29 3:12:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#30

Here's the Oxblog post.

Now, from the discussion at rogerlsimon.com

Here is what the Lancet article says:
If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion.
For those of you not familiar with epidemiology, 1.5 is the relative risk, or multiplier, placed on normal mortality in this case.
Two points:
1. The threshold for publication in most leading medical journals is an RR of 3.0. This means Lancet has pushed this thing into print by lowering its own standards.
2. An RR of 1.5 means that (1.5-1.0) / 1.5 is the percentage "explained" by their data, or 33%. In other words, 66% of the explanation is due to something other than the war!
So to recap, Lancet publishes a study using highly flawed survey methods with numerous systematic and other biases, lowers its own standards and rushes its peer review to get it into print. And even then their numbers don't prove anything.
This is junk science of the worst kind. Pathetic. -- Fresh Air

Methinks The Lancet is going to find out what it's like to get peer-reviewed by the blogosphere.

Posted by Old Grouch 2004-10-29 6:20:47 PM|| 2004-10-29 6:20:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Okay, more analysis:

#1:
How Many Dead/Death Rates/Baselines
#2: The Nation: Past Errors in Lancet Research
#3: Risk-of-Death Estimates

Posted by Old Grouch 2004-10-29 6:38:29 PM|| 2004-10-29 6:38:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Here's an analysis that shreds the report. The editor of The Lancet deserves to be fired.

Posted by Tom 2004-10-29 9:10:10 PM|| 2004-10-29 9:10:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Grumpy Uncle Sam 2004-10-29 3:30:01 AM|| 2004-10-29 3:30:01 AM|| Front Page Top

11:21 SteveS
11:12 Jack Fleling2104
10:52 Nero
10:44 Procopius2k
10:44 Grom the Affective
10:40 Procopius2k
10:39 Procopius2k
10:37 Besoeker
10:35 Besoeker
10:35 Elmerert Hupens2660
10:31 Frank G
10:29 Grom the Affective
10:27 Glenmore
10:26 Jack Fleling2104
10:23 Glenmore
10:13 Glenmore
10:11 Difar Dave
10:01 Old Patriot
10:00 NN2N1
09:58 EMS Artifact
09:55 EMS Artifact
09:48 Besoeker
09:43 magpie
09:35 Frank G