(no subject)

As some of you have no-doubt heard, Johns Hopkins ran a study, published in Lancet, that suggests as many as 650,000 people have died in Iraq, people who wouldn't have died if death rates had stayed the same as they were prior to the invasion. In other words, the decision to invade has cost 650,000 deaths so far[1]

Many people complained about this, including Iraq Body Count. I've finally taken a look at their objections, and I address them here.

IBC raises some questions that we should find answers to. They raise no objections based upon solid assumptions that should lead us to question the study.

They do raise questions that we should check out; we should not assume their assumptions are wrong. But we can't safely assume they are right.


[1] Note the wording there: I didn't say "deaths of innocent people", nor did I reference civilians, nor did I say that the coalition killed 650,000 people. There are a lot of mis-statements about the study on the web.

(no subject)

As some of you have no-doubt heard, Johns Hopkins ran a study, published in Lancet, that suggests as many as 650,000 people have died in Iraq, people who wouldn't have died if death rates had stayed the same as they were prior to the invasion. In other words, the decision to invade has cost 650,000 deaths so far[1]

Many people complained about this, including Iraq Body Count. I've finally taken a look at their objections, and I address them here.

IBC raises some questions that we should find answers to. They raise no objections based upon solid assumptions that should lead us to question the study.

They do raise questions that we should check out; we should not assume their assumptions are wrong. But we can't safely assume they are right.


[1] Note the wording there: I didn't say "deaths of innocent people", nor did I reference civilians, nor did I say that the coalition killed 650,000 people. There are a lot of mis-statements about the study on the web.