Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (154799)	1/15/2006 12:02:06 PM
From: TimF	of 793717

The three biggest issues are IMO the accuracy of the claims for the prewar death rate, the lack of any other evidence suggesting an increase in the death rate even remotely approaching that argued for by the Lancet study, and the issue of sampleing. I think the third issue is explained pretty well at seixon.com or quickly and directly by seixon.com Note the areas that where not sampled. I didn't see anything in either of your links that seemed to even try to deal with this issue. ---------------------------- I did see a link to sagenz.typepad.com followed by an effective response to the original argument made at that link (which was an argument that I hadn't brought up), but the blogger corrected the article and it has some interesting data. Apparently the pre-war death rate estimate was from the sample but it relied on the deaths of just 12 children, just 4 non-elderly adult men to project out the death rate for all of Iraq for those groups. I understand that a random sample can be relatively small and still provide useful information about a larger hole but I doubt very much that a sample that small is sufficent. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next