No, it's simply a matter of fact that they cannot meaningfully measure pre-conflict with the survey, a fact someone with any clue about the nature of these studies would know. You also literally have zero clue what "extrapolate" even means here, but it sure sounds right in your head.
No, it's simply a matter of fact that they cannot meaningfully measure pre-conflict with the survey, a fact someone with any clue about the nature of these studies would know. You also literally have zero clue what "extrapolate" even means here, but it sure sounds right in your head.
WTF are you talking about. They absolutely can meaningfully measure pre conflict mortality. Every study does it! Jesus man, you have been going on and on about me not knowing things, and look at the shit you re now saying.
How is it that you think the Lancet study found its pre invasion mortality number?
Look at all the shit you have claimed, and look at the facts. It is amazing how right wing you are about this. Ignore all the data and insult your way out of every corner.
I mean, just think of this logically, which might be hard, but just try it.
The Lancet survey did a survey between May and July 2006. The name of the damn thing was this.
"Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey"
Do you believe that the numbers they gathered pre 2006 was by magic? If you don't, then explain to me why they were able to get data from the previous years, but could not get data before 2003.
Look at you man. You are a floundering fish at this point. This last thing goes against the very foundation of data collection. Its amazing how anti science you truly are. Its starting to become clear as to why you cant admit you are wrong.
Here's a clue someone with any idea what's going on might find useful. The study conducts a "cross-sectional cluster sample survey" as the title implies and gets a certain measurement as a result. More similar surveys are done for that primary metric and largely agree. I guess that means the first study is just shit.
It's really quite comical when someone who still can't figure out what's going on in these studies, or anything involving science or even googling, goes around discrediting this one or that.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,745
- 17,400
- 136
Listen little buckshit, you made a claim, I called you out on it and now you are bringing straw to the argument.
But they don't largely agree. You keep trying to push that and its wrong. 276k excess violent deaths is over 8 years not the same as 601k excess violent deaths over 3 years. You seem to not want to address the numbers, but I'm going to cite them each time you lie saying they were all roughly the same. You are starting to sound like a broken record. I give data and facts, and you say I don't know what is going on. The claim you made does not represent the truth.
Comparison Of Pre-Iraq War Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 2.89 per 1,000 2001-2003
2004 Lancet 5.0 per 1,000 2002-2003
2006 Lancet 5.5 per 1,000 2002-2003
Comparison Of Post-Invasion Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 4.5 per 1,000 2003-2011
Iraq Family Health Survey 5.31 per 1,000 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 10.3 per 1,000 2003-2006
2004 Lancet 12.3 per 1,000 2003-2004
2006 Lancet 13.3 per 1,000 2003-2006
Comparison Of Estimated Deaths
Iraq Living Conditions 24,000 2003-2004
2004 Lancet 98,000 2003-2004
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 2003-2006
2006 Lancet 654,965 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 1,033,000 2003-2007
PLOS Medicine 460,000 2003-2011
I made a claim, and backed it up. Hillary Clinton pushed for DOMA. Your argument is that she did it to really protect gays from an amendment that would have been worse. That is to say, that she pushed for DOMA which was a lesser evil than an amendment. If that were true, then explain why she was not for gay marriage for years and years after the passage. She did not benefit from remaining pro DOMA and had no need to continue saying what she said.
She pushed for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. She stated multiple times after the passage that she still felt that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. When public views changed, so did she. The only way you can believe your stance is to say that she was secretly for gay rights and did not agree with DOMA, but could not change her stance for some unknown reason.
Funny you still have zero clue what they agree about. Hint 1: it's the primary quantity measured by these surveys as mentioned quite a times already. Hint 2: The surveys don't measure excess deaths.
Nobody believes you find this thread comical
No, it's pretty amusing to mock dummies who have no idea what's going on. Case in point.
Since you're the smart one here, consider helping him out with most basic concepts in topics he's some kind of expert in.
stormkroe
Golden Member
- May 28, 2011
- 1,550
- 97
- 91
If I tell you that I mostly just ask questions here and only assert in subjects that I'm very well versed in, would you believe me or would I have to quote facts in 73 posts of proof that only you don't seem to understand?
I can see how you feel welled versed in subjects if you're being educated by the likes of readibrad.
Ohhhhh. So when you said "cientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. Now to be fair, they weren't all killed by westerners, but that's like saying the poverty & radicalism & such resulting from war can't be blamed on the west because westerners didn't directly steal food from those people." you did not actually mean they all show similar violent excess deaths, but something different. That is weird.
And when you said this to spy "The John Hopkins paper figures similar excess deaths to what the IFHS would should if it bothered. The former somewhat blurs the line between deaths strictly from war, and what might be considered collateral damage (more specifically they ask for death certificates related to the conflict and tend to categorize these as violent)." you also were not talking about excess deaths.
But, that also cannot be correct. Because the excess death estimation for the Lancet was 650k and the IFHS had 405k which is about 38% lower. Then, when you look at excess violent deaths the Lancet had 601k and the IFHS had 60% of their figure which would be 243k. So about 60% fewer excess violent deaths.
So what is the primary quantity that you think they find to be the same? Its not excess deaths as has been shown. Its definitely not the violent deaths. Are you trying to in the longest way possible say they found the total deaths to be the same, because even that they did not find the same.
Excess deaths different.
Violent deaths different.
Mortality rate different pre and post invasion.
Lets see what metric you try and pull out of your ass next.
Also, watching paint dry can actually be very neat ill have you know. Seeing how it develops patterns as it drys because of the differences in the surface and external factors is cool. Different paints all dry differently and all have different effects.
Ohhhhh. So when you said "cientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. Now to be fair, they weren't all killed by westerners, but that's like saying the poverty & radicalism & such resulting from war can't be blamed on the west because westerners didn't directly steal food from those people." you did not actually mean they all show similar violent excess deaths, but something different. That is weird.
And when you said this to spy "The John Hopkins paper figures similar excess deaths to what the IFHS would should if it bothered. The former somewhat blurs the line between deaths strictly from war, and what might be considered collateral damage (more specifically they ask for death certificates related to the conflict and tend to categorize these as violent)." you also were not talking about excess deaths.
But, that also cannot be correct. Because the excess death estimation for the Lancet was 650k and the IFHS had 405k which is about 38% lower. Then, when you look at excess violent deaths the Lancet had 601k and the IFHS had 60% of their figure which would be 243k. So about 60% fewer excess violent deaths.
So what is the primary quantity that you think they find to be the same? Its not excess deaths as has been shown. Its definitely not the violent deaths. Are you trying to in the longest way possible say they found the total deaths to be the same, because even that they did not find the same.
Excess deaths different.
Violent deaths different.
Mortality rate different pre and post invasion.
Lets see what metric you try and pull out of your ass next.
Also, watching paint dry can actually be very neat ill have you know. Seeing how it develops patterns as it drys because of the differences in the surface and external factors is cool. Different paints all dry differently and all have different effects.
Help me out here, I'm trying to figure out how someone who's evidently never even seen the paper in question can "discredit" it so easily. When you said it was so long & arduous above, and that's why it took you so long it even find it with google, how many pages was it in your head?
Just so we're clear here, this isn't an argument among equals. This is someone who's actually read academic papers before mocking someone trying to pretend they have.
Last edited:
Why are you now saying that I have not seen the paper? You just have to register and then they will give you the full 8 page PDF to review.
Not sure how this matters though. Your claim that all studies show the same excess violent deaths was not true.
In addition to can't figure out how to do a 5 sec google search after a day, this was also rather comical from above:
"It takes a long time to go over an entire paper, so you saying get it and then expecting a response quickly is dumb and you know it. After you said the Lancet study, I was in the process of going over it. "
"You want it to seem as if I was unwilling to find the paper, rather than me going over a very long paper."
Calling it a full 8 pages is rather liberal, given it's more like 7 pages with plenty of pictures; and the way academic papers are structured it's really more like 3 or less of actual reading depending how studious the reader, and let's say you don't seem real studiouis. So does this mean you're a super slow reader and/or a few pages consists a very long paper in your world? Or did you only manage to find the thing after I start mocking you about it?
The point here is you zero clue what's going on, other than "this other paper has some numbers I like better" or "I found this butthurt article from an unrelated field". For example, I recall in the context of reasons one study "discredited" the other you parroted that it had more samples. So how much better would you ballpark that advantage? To make this real easy you can use any model for sampling confidence and not just the one the papers laid out because that would be pretty hopeless. It's pretty hard to take seriously someone making math claims but has zero clue how any of the math works.
The fuck you on about now? You said the Lancet survey, and then I said "so I have to go looking for it" in the same day. Me pointing out that its weak shit to not post links to your source, and telling people to go google it is not the same as me saying I wont. Again, this should have nothing to do with the fact that your claim that all agree on excess violent deaths is wrong.
There are also sources. So when they bring up the IBC and provide a source, I go look up the source. I get that you probably don't but I do when the paper is questioning the methodology. I don't find that to be unreasonable either. 2 pages with data from multiple sources takes me a lot longer than 10 pages without sources.
Again, this is a distraction from the fact that you still wont admit that your claim that all studies agree on the excess violent deaths is wrong.
Ah, so now your argument is that unless I am a statistician then you will not be able to admit that your claim that all studies found the same excess violent deaths? That seams weird to me. I believe I have already linked this person, but he seems to have answered your point.
http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/michael-spagat(2ff0d241-d999-41bf-bb08-eccbc8b1a917).html
-Michael Spagat has a PhD in Economics from Harvard and a BA in Economics and Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences from Northwestern. He has held research/teaching posts at the University of Illinois, Brown University, the New Economic School in Moscow, and theInstitute of Economics of the Academia Sinica. He is a research fellow of the CEPR, the Davidson Institute and the Households in Conflict Network. He is writing a book entitled “Conflict Analysis” and likely to write a book on conflict mortality in Iraq.
I believe he is qualified to look at the mathematics, but I am sure you will find a way to say otherwise.
Anyway, here is an interview he did where he answers the point you just posted.
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/questioning-lancet-plos-and-other.html
"
2. When you read the PLOS report it seemed like they definitely recognized all the criticisms of the 2006 Lancet paper, because it said they did all these steps to avoid those problems. Then when they went to the media they said there was no problem with the Lancet paper at all, and our new report backs it up. It seemed like what they said to the press, and what they actually wrote were two different things.
Right, I completely agree with that. Of course, if the numbers had come out similar between the two survey then they would have, said “look, Burnham et al. was criticized for all these reasons. We fixed all of those things, but it didn’t make a difference, so the criticism was not important.” In fact, what happened was that the Hagopian et al. report fixed most of those things and then the numbers plummeted. Unfortunately, the authors don’t yet seem willing to come to terms with this fact in the public dialogue."
Weird right?
But again, I shall beat this dead horse.
600k deaths for 3 years is not even close to 400k deaths for 8 years. Why will you not admit that your claim was wrong?
No, I'm pretty sure can't figure out how to do a 5 sec google search is completely consistent with trying to call a few pages a very long paper (or more likely never seen the paper at that point despite all sort of grand pronouncements about it), and pretty much everything else you do.
No, my argument is that pretty much everything out of you is pure comedy. Like parroting basic math claims you still can't possibly grasp as evidence that "discredits" anything, or it takes a statistician to figure out how said math works.
And much as it might seem to someone who has zero clue, no he hasn't, unless he's been inventing some new math.
He is qualified to look at the math, which makes whatever claims you're parroting all the more disingenuous, and desperately publishing in unrelated journals just like all those climate deniers rather confirms this.
LOL, guess you'll never figure out how confidence intervals work, and neither does he, though it appears for differing reasons.
Last edited:
"All you can do is google"..."you cant even google"
huh?
If a you have a study that finds 600k over 3 years, and then you have another study over 8 years that finds 400k, someone messed up somewhere. Which one do you think is wrong, or do you think those are somehow the same?
Also, what "basic math claim" have I gotten wrong? This is a thing you like to do. Claim someone is stupid and has gotten something wrong. How or why is never needed, just the claim. When you are presented with data, you dismiss the person instead of explaining why the data is wrong. My guess is that you find science and arguments too hard.
Good, so he is qualified. So why then did he say this?
"I have looked a little bit at just the time period that was covered by the Burnham et al. 2006 study that had found 600,000 violent deaths. The Hagopian et al. data will come in at around 100,000 deaths for that same time period. So there is a factor-of-six discrepancy between the two. To say these are consistent with each other is really farfetched.
Comparing the way the Hagopian et al. survey has been presented, and the way the Roberts et al. 2004 Lancet survey was presented is also interesting. In both cases you have a central estimate of excess deaths with almost comical uncertainty surrounding it. For Roberts et al. this was an estimate of 98,000 with a confidence interval of 8,000 to 194,000. Then there is a public relations campaign that erases the uncertainty, leaving behind just the central estimate - 100,000 for Roberts et al. and 400,000 for Hagopian et al. Finally, the central estimate is promoted as a sort of minimum, with the “likely” number being even higher than their central estimate. Actually, Hagopian et al. went one step further, inflating up by another 100,000 before declaring a minimum of 500,000."
That sure looks to be in agreement with my position. Why is it that you cant agree with this professor?
Understanding and using are two different things. Confidence intervals simply mean that the numbers from these surveys have a probability of x for falling within a set range.
Wait, is your argument that because the Lancet had a 95% CI of their 654,965 excess deaths falling between 392,979 and 942,636 over 3 years and the PLOS finding 405,000 95% CI excess deaths between 48,000-751,000 over 8 years is the same because 405,000 falls between 392,979 and 942,636 and 654,965 falls between 48,000 and 751,000? I would hope not, because those are for different time ranges.
Why can you not admit that your claim of all studies agreeing on excess violent deaths is wrong?
As stated & demonstrated you had to be taught how to google.
The one you literally just replied to, that apparently requires some kind of statistician to show.
Because he's a hack who evidently can't get a relevant journal to publish him.
Quite hilarious that you forgot about your star study which would've figured on 400k excess as mentioned.
Seems you'll never realize that I've regrettably had to deal with students who just weren't school material and won't be able to read a paper if their life depended on it, often trying to boast about their competence nonetheless. Worse part is some of them apparently believe in their delusions of grandeur. Just a life tip for future job interviews that anyone competent will know and sometimes go out of their way to ensure you never get a job with the corp if you waste their hour with this.
Are you talking about the IFHS? If you are, just say so, oh wait if you said the study then you could not obfuscate the situation. But if you are, then lets go back to it again.
The IFHS found 151k violent deaths. Compare that to your original claim and again you see that it too does not agree with your, or the Lancet study for that matter. Now, if we look at the domain, the IFHS had 354,000 to 523,000. You may or may not realize that 392,979 and 942,636 from the Lancet is not the same as 354,000 to 523,000.
So, the IFHS had a percent difference of 38.54%. The Lancet had 82.31% difference. Again, drastically different.
But again, this is bullshit in terms of this argument. You claimed that all the studies agreed on the same number of violent excess deaths. You were wrong. 400k excess deaths vs 650k excess deaths is almost a 50% difference. But, your claim was not about excess deaths, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.
Your claim was wrong and the data backs my side. I know you really hate science and facts, but son, its time to admit you were wrong. I know you feel smarter than everyone and you think I'm dumb, but you cannot argue against facts.
Lol, still have trouble comparing number intervals and bragging about studies you can barely be taught to find on google nevermind read. I wonder if you've ever read much of that buckshot guy mentioned above writes, and thought of him how anyone with much competence thinks of you.
Maybe Agent00f & realibrad should just get a room...
This was a fun thread with an astounding amount of right wing conspiracy theory, speculation & innuendo, basically the full Monty of Benghazification of the right wing mind set. I mean, these guys were practically finger painting the walls with their own shit but you spoiled it...
This was a fun thread with an astounding amount of right wing conspiracy theory, speculation & innuendo, basically the full Monty of Benghazification of the right wing mind set. I mean, these guys were practically finger painting the walls with their own shit but you spoiled it...
You will bring up anything and say anything to not admit you were wrong. You said that all the studies agree on excess violent deaths. They do not and I think you know that at this point but your ego won't let you admit it.
Also, you have no idea about buckshot. If you did then you would know the incident and that it involved me doing to him what I did to you. He tried to claim something that evidence did not support. You also made a claim that evidence does not support.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter