From: Bill Lucy 

In article , gaw{at}sover.net says...
> > Huh? What the hell is "countering statistics"? The
Lancet article posted
> > the statistics, did Kaplan/Slate counter? Or are you suggesting that the
> > Crookedtimber piece should have posted such?
> >
>
> The Slate piece was a condemnation of the Lancet's abuse of statistics.
> To be fair, the Lancet presented a range (which was enormous) but the
> usual suspects ran with the bigger numbers.  The Lancet is still culpable
> and is another example of magazines formally devoted to hard sciences
> (like Scientific American) which have gone downhill over the years into
> partisan causes.

The "abuse of statistics" was on Kaplan's part. He has little or
no understanding of a key point in the Lancet study. That is this -- there
were more deaths *caused* by the invasion than if it didn't happen. Kaplan
misses this point entirely by focusing on "8,000 deaths". No,
it's 8,000 *more* deaths, at minimum. And, it's more likely that the number
is over 100,000, according to Lambert. It's not 0, it's not a
*positive* number (i.e.we saved Iraqi lives by invading).

And one outlier (Fallujah) was omitted. *AND* Najaf (probably another
outlier) wasn't included in the study.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5