Soros-funded Iraq Casualties Study Dezinformatsiya

I’m late on this story, but it definitely belongs on this blog.  

How do you feeeeel about the Iraq Campaign?  Why do you feel that way?  Might it be possible that somebody wants you to feel that way?

Fuzzy Math?

There is new information about a report in the British medical journal The Lancet — released three weeks before the 2006 elections — that said casualties in Iraq since the U.S. invasion had exceeded 650,000.

The National Journal magazine reports that the figure is widely acknowledged to be inflated. And it says the study was funded by noted war critic George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Two co-authors who admit to being war opponents say they sent their report to The Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election. And the Iraqi researcher involved in the project had been an official in Saddam Hussein’s government — and failed to follow established procedures for making his data available for review.

Data Bomb

Who’s blogging about Data Bomb

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under PSYOP

10 responses to “Soros-funded Iraq Casualties Study Dezinformatsiya

  1. This is a weird world. It just blows my mind how easily manipulated people are. We have the New York Times reporting that SECDEF Gates says the media is not the enemy (HUH?) and we have people buying inflated casualty numbers from anti-war freaks who (naturally) want said numbers to appear as high as possible so as to bolster their ass-inine position. Do people really never consider the source on stuff like this? Am I just too cynical?

  2. I’m 32% Cynical.

    Generally you give people the benefit of the doubt. But there are exceptions.
    You buy into many of the things that mainstream society believes, but you’re not anybody’s fool.

    How can cynics be patriots?

    Not enough cynicism makes one gullible.

    Too much cynicism makes one unable to believe anything or trust anybody.

    Rumsfeld knew the media was working for the other side. He’s gone now, partly because the media destroyed his effectiveness. Gates, whether he sincerely believes the media is not part of the opposing force or not, doesn’t think he can treat them like enemies. Maybe that’s a little taqqiya on his part, or maybe he’s a clueless rube who just fell off the turnip truck.

  3. Just a thought.

    The number 650,000 only seems high at first glance. But remember, they are including A LOT of things that are not in other estimates. Things like Infant fatalaties, non-combat deaths due to in-access to healthcare, poor drinking water, and so on. This is very different than culling the number of deaths from newspaper reports.

    The criticism I would like to investigate the most is that they underestimated the death rate under the previous regime. I suspect that the rates fluctuated wildly around the country: People in Sunni/Ba’aathist areas probably had superior healthcare to people in Shiite areas that had rebelled in the early nineties. People in Kurdish areas probably had even worse.

    It is easy to jump on the bandwagon pro or anti war, and use that for a reason to attack the study. I am not saying that the study is free of political bias: I don’t have any way of knowing. However, even the most strident supporter of the war has to admit that there are many casualties outside the direct combat areas when there has been so much damage to the infrastructure. The question is what was that damage. Unfortunately, I have not seen a report other than the Lancet report that attempts to quantify this damage using well established biostatisitcal techniques.

    I am not saying that, even ignoring bias, that the report is accurate. I think the results of polling in New Hampshire showing a win for Obama, when Clinton actually won quite handily, shows that polling, surveying, and statistics can be quite wrong even under the best of circumstances.

    In conclusion, don’t compare the 650,000 from the Lancet study to the 50,000 media estimates from the government. they are measuring different things.

  4. You Are 64% Cynical

    You’re a full blown cynic… and probably even skeptical of these results.
    You have your optimistic moments, but most likely you keep them to yourself.

    How Cynical Are You?

  5. The number 650,000 only seems high at first glance. But remember, they are including A LOT of things that are not in other estimates. Things like Infant fatalaties, non-combat deaths due to in-access to healthcare, poor drinking water, and so on. This is very different than culling the number of deaths from newspaper reports.

    I do agree with that. It’s how the numbers are being used to imply other things that I call foul on. And you’re right about wondering about pre-OIF numbers. It’s sort of like when we here the US military casualty rates for the war and we think it’s a very high number, but then when it’s put in perspective by comparing it to, say, the number of violent deaths in America’s biggest 10 cities or something like that, that we realize the numbers are amazingly low. BUT the Enemedia will manipulate whatever they can to further their own agenda and biases.

  6. Survey problem:

    family has 1o members,
    5 are killed.
    the other 5 left move to different houses, or with relatives.

    Now they do survey .
    Ask if any family members dead?

    Answers from the 5 at 5 different locations
    each one saysing 5 killed
    now add up to 25 in survey, not 5

    Gt

  7. Grimmy

    There’s even a greater problem with this survey.

    Anyone who actually believes that people walked around in Iraq during the hight of the violent times and knocked on strangers doors is both an idiot and a moron.

    This survey never took place. If it had, we’d have been reading and hearing about the surveyors being slaughtered like stupid sheep in all the news of that period, both print and broadcast.

    This thing was falsified from top to bottom, start to finish.

    Give me a set of Iraqi phone books and a couple native speakers/writers, and I can create every bit as much evidence to support a survey without ever leaving my home.

    There’s dumbass, and then there’s the kind of dumbass that deserves to be took out behind the shed and beat silly with a clue bat.

  8. Not as late as FR was. LOL!

  9. cleotus

    Always remember this: Rigures Don’t Lie – But Liars Can Figure!