to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge



to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!

Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

« October 2006 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Listed on BlogShares

Monday, 16 October 2006
The Lancet lies...
Those are words used in the title of an article by an Iraqi named Omar who has a blogsite called

Iraq the Model the full title of what he wrote is

Responding to the Lancet lies...
When I read the report I can only feel apathy and inhumanity from those who did the count towards the victims and towards our suffering as a whole. I can tell they were so pleased when the equations their twisted minds designed led to those numbers and nothing can convince me that they did their so called research out of compassion or care.

To me their motives are clear, all they want is to prove that our struggle for freedom was the wrong thing to do. And they shamelessly use lies to do this…when they did not find the death they wanted to see on the ground, they faked it on paper! They disgust me…

This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives.
Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.

Those are the words used by Omar as a reaction to the Lancet study. The whole is worth reading. The blog itself is worth study. It will contain information, and sentiments you will never find in Mainstream Media reporting, and anyone who has not had their mind made up for them with agit-prop soundbites would have to ask themselves,"Why has this been hidden, covered up, suppressed ignored.

But it is true it is an emotional reactions, so there will be many who can comfort themselves that the Lancet study has facts and numbers on its side.

But does it really? It has claims but few will have looked at its facts They will read the different variations of the numbers 600K, 650K, 655K and will look no further.

The Lancet Study itself can be found on the Lancet site. Registration if free.Study estimates 655 000 excess Iraqi deaths since start of war

For most that would be complicate, involved and confusing.

Omar also wrote down his thoughts on a website called, Politics Central. Its title is a little longer. J'accuse: Iraq the Model responds to the Lancet Lies, again Omars essay is more emotional and subjective, rather than objective.

But in the comments section, one commenter brings up some very revealing statistics. Their claim can be verified in the Lancet site itself.

Soldier's Dad : states this,
I'll shoot a hole in the Lancet Study.

The mortality rate in the EU is 10.10/1000.

The Mortality rate in the US is 8.5/1000.

The mortality rate in Hungary is 13/1000

The world average mortality rate is 8.5/1000 per year.

The Lancet study uses a "baseline" mortality rate of 5.5. Half the mortality rate of Europe.

After all their fancy interviews...the Lancet Study comes up with a mortality rate for Iraq that is statistically the same as Hungary.

I must have missed it, but Hungary hasn't been at war for decades. The EU has been at peace for 60 years. They have the worlds best healthcare.

But their baseline mortality rates are more than double Saddams Iraq.

It is really easy to come up with a huge "excess deaths" number if one believes that no one ever died of anything in Iraq prior to 2003.

Iraq was an idyllic socialist paradise...unequaled since the Garden of Eden during Saddams reign.

Just ask Saddam...and not those pesky Kurds or Shiites that were mass murdered.

But was the Soviet Union except for those 10's of millions that just magically "disappeared".

There is no lie too great that the hardcore leftist communists wouldn't tell.

So for those who have accepted the Lancet study as gospel and a smoking gun to denounce America with?

You must also accept as the truth that the Iraq mortality rate before the Invasion, was almost half of Europe's and in addition thirty-five percent lower that Americas. I have give above a link to the Lancet website and the study for those who wish to verify this claim. Some will not go to that much trouble, the Lancet Lies are too convenient.

Anyone who can still claim in the face of those numbers that the Lancet Study has any relationship to the truth has no idea what that word means.

There definition is instead, anything that can damage America, with no desire for what the truth really is or what the Iraqis feel.

There are those who truly want peace, at times I disagree with their opinions, but there are others who do not really care about Peace, they do not care about the Iraqi People, they merely care about how to damage America.

George Orwell once said.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"" -

Those who support Oppressive Totalitarian Regimes out of naivety are one thing, those who do it out of malice for America are another and some of them are Americans

This is nothing new, they have been with us from the beginning of the Republic.

Samuel Adams spoke of such:

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

We have an election coming up, I hope people find out about these facts and before they pull that lever, fill in those spaces, they ask themselves.

How would Samuel Adams Vote?

Technorati Tags:: :

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 4:42 AM CDT
| Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 16 October 2006 4:52 AM CDT

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 9:10 PM CDT

Name: Alan

FYI, the mortality rate for Iraq as 5.5 is not something the Lancet made up. It is also the accepted rate from the CIA.

It may me horribly wrong because of lack of reporting in dictatorships (and it seems horribly wrong), but the lancet isn't just pulling figures out of the air

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 2:18 AM CDT

Name: ky/kentuckydan

So I have been informed, it would be interesting to know how the CIA arrived at such a ridiculous number, but then we really did not have many Huminit sources in that region did we?

Be that as it may FYI

"Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5?5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4?3–7?1), compared with 13?3 per 1000 people per year (10?9–16?1) in the 40 months post-invasion"

Can be found in the Summary of the Study

Under Methods we find

Participants and procedures
To measure mortality we did a national cross-sectional cohort study of deaths from January, 2002, through July, 2006. Household information was gathered about deaths that occurred between January 1, 2002, and the invasion of March 18, 2003, in all households and these data were compared with deaths that occurred from the time of the invasion through to the date of survey. A sample size of 12000 was calculated to be adequate to identify a doubling of an estimated pre-invasion crude mortality rate of 5?0 per 1000 people per year with 95% confidence and a power of 80%, and was chosen to balance the need for robust data with the level of risk acceptable to field teams. Sampling followed the same approach used in 2004,8 except that selection of survey sites was by random numbers applied to streets or blocks rather than with global positioning units (GPS), since surveyors felt that being seen with a GPS unit could put their lives at risk. The use of GPS units might be seen as targeting an area for air strikes, or that the unit was in reality a remote detonation control. By confining the survey to a cluster of houses close to one another it was felt the benign purpose of the survey would spread quickly by word of mouth among households, thus lessening risk to interviewers"

SO the Lancet study does NOT derive their data from any CIA figures, but instead claim that the Base Line Mortality Rate comes from their own study.

Does the figure seem reasonable?

We are left with only two alternatives.

The Base Line Data is accurate or The Study used "cooked" figures to obtain a desired result.

Which do you think is the most likely?

Monday, 6 November 2006 - 5:35 PM CST

Name: Timbo

The quality of public health care has only little to do with the country's mortality rate. Have a look here:

Living conditions in India are far worse than those in France,
but the baseline mortality rate is lower - since the demographic structure differs. The criticism of The Lancet's methods of sampling may still be correct - but complaining about wrong mortality rates misses the point.

View Latest Entries