Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Lancing Lancet: 547 becomes 654,965

That's the number that the fishwrap "medical journal" The Lancet claims have brutally died as a result of our eeevil neo-con invasion of Iraq.

Of course, that would be the same Lancet that previously claimed 100,000 had died, only to admit later that what they meant to say was "somewhere between 8,000 and 192,000, we're not sure."

The same Lancet whose publishing deadlines always just seem to magically coincide with US elections. In fact, the author of the report freely admits that its release was timed to affect elections, "out of concern for humanitarian issues."

The same Lancet, coincidentally, whose editor likes to hang out with and give speeches alongside George Galloway. In this video, purportedly objective Lancet editor Richard Horton attends an antiwar rally railing against the "lying" "axis of Anglo-American imperialists" who have created a "mountain of violence and torture" preferring "global death" and the "killing of children instead of building hospitals," all of which has "shattered the human family." Yeah, no political agenda there.

The actual number of Iraqi deaths recorded in Lancet's latest study is just 547. Extrapolating from that figure, the study's authors estimate "that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war."

This, they got from talking to Iraqi households, which in plain English means "we listened to the folklore for a while then pulled some numbers out of our ass."

Of course, the rejoinder to any doubts cast on the study's credibility has been to bludgeon the temeritous offender with a howl that the study has been "peer reviewed." You get the picture; the study has been peer reviewed, you proles! Don't question it! Yet there are some who doubt the authority of peer review: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Who is this peer review heretic? Why, none other than the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton, of course!

To put the Lancet's numbers in perspective, that's larger than the total number of Americans killed during combat in every major conflict in our nation's history. It's a larger number than were killed in Germany during five years of Allied bombing. And it's more than double the combined number of civilians killed in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

So, according to these geniuses, Iraq would've been better off if we'd just nuked the place!

In other words, what we see here is a politically motivated load of steaming manure stacked so high that you have to bring your own oxygen to climb the foul mound of mendacity.


Blogger Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

A rough estimate based on Juan Cole's kill-by-kill would be around 60k-115k, based on the number of deaths per day typically being in the 50-90 range. But as the sectarian violence has been escalating, that estimate range is probably significantly too high (as it extrapolates backwards, from a period of greater fighting).

Sat Oct 14, 08:33:00 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home