From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:54:48 -0500, Phil Payne
 wrote:

>> >> A google for LANCET CASUALTIES FLAWED produces 26,600 hits.  Which
>> >> publications would you be inclined to trust?
>
>> > The Lancet.
>
>> In other words, any publication which throws out crap you are
>> predestined
>> to believe.  Did you look at the Slate article I posted?
>
> The Lancet has the advantage of integrity.  When it is proved wrong, it
> always retracts - see the MMR story, for instance.
>
> It has not retracted, nor has it been suggested by anyone (including
> Bliar)
> that it should.
>
>

Did you read the article from Slate (no Bush fan) I posted which explained
EXACTLY what was wrong with the Lancet article's misuse of statistics?

--
Gary Wiltshire

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