Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2752)	10/13/2006 6:48:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I think the Lancet study is inaccurate (in fact probably wildly so), and it might be partially due to bias. But I have no reason to think it amounts to a deliberate falsification of the results, or even a deliberate setup to intentionally greatly exaggerate the results. I think the such a study isn't likely to give accurate results in a situation like Iraq, even if it has no serious flaws. The bias might show itself in accepting the large number, without a sufficiently critical look at the problem. It would be interesting to see if the number had come in smaller than expected (say 8,000). The study team might have been skeptical of results and made a major effort to find ways where there methodology or assumptions where flawed. I think any such study is likely to have flaws. Such flaws probably go in both directions (even if they may have a much large effect in one direction than the other). A biased person might seek out the flaws in one direction more than the other, without intentionally being dishonest or trying to distort the results. Now saying the study is wrong because of the bias, is ad-hominem even if you can prove that the researches wanted a larger result, but it is certainly something that could cause a different result, and if we have no independent confirmation of the study it gives us reason to not feel we have to accept it. If we have no argument against it we could just say we are unconvinced. If there is evidence against it is reasonable to go beyond that and say that the study has questionable results, or even that its conclusion are highly unlikely, and to consider the study to be likely to be wrong, esp. if they can not answer the counterarguments.