Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

I still don't understand why TeeJay has such a problem with these figures. Is it because he really is a warmonger who accepts everything that has been fed to him by official channels of information? I think that's it; he has difficulty thinking outside the constraints of the prescriptive, official line. Presumably, if someone in a white coat came up to him and told him that they were a 'scientist' and that they had a magic time machine, he'd believe them.
 
I think it comes down to 'you pays your political money and makes your choice'.

It is highly probable the official figures have been massaged downwards, and these figures for a whole multitude of reasons are probably rather high.

To my mind more pertinent questions lie in just who is killing who, and why? {And just how do we reasonably get the hell out of there, and also what the local and wider outcomes are likely to be.

It is clear to all but a few that apres Iraq2 has been an almost unmititated f*ck up.
 
* The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.

* Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.

* This obvious selection bias would not matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.
Incidentally, the above claim is wrong. None of the clusters were on main streets, they were all on residential roads off main streets according to the study. That means that, according to the "main street bias" theory, they may well have under-estimated the death rate by not sampling any of the people living in the most dangerous area - the main street. Depending on how mortality probability varies with distance of residence from a main street (if it does at all), the net effect could be an under-estimation, an over-estimation or the whole thing could be just a desperate ploy to come up with a plausible sounding flaw in the methodology.

Incidentally, Professor Johnson has a personal motivation for disputing these figures. His work for the last few years has concentrated on a really dumb-ass theory about patterns of terrorism which rest upon casualty rates during insurgencies. His method of accumulating data on Iraq were as follows
* take the lower figure from IBC
* remove lots of data which is more or less arbitrarily classified as 'criminality'.
* remove other bits of data which don't count for one reason or another
* eventually make the sums match

His work is particularly flawed since it does not even attempt to posit a definition of which acts it is counting as terrorism in advance. Rather it adapts the data set as it goes along and introduces all sorts of ad-hoc justifications for removing numbers from the set. Furthermore, the organisational model that it proposes for explaining the similarity in patterns of 'terrorism' is woefully simplistic and just plain silly really.
 
gurrier said:
Depending on how mortality probability varies with distance of residence from a main street (if it does at all), the net effect could be an under-estimation, an over-estimation or the whole thing could be just a desperate ploy to come up with a plausible sounding flaw in the methodology.
Bingo
 
Another aspect of this story in today's Independent

Medics beg for help as Iraqis die needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking


The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country, Iraqi doctors warn today.

As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the 2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been provided to the victims, they say.

In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring death rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say governments and the international medical community are ignoring their plight.

In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (£11bn) was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds, including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.

But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the essentials for basic medical care.

The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a $200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed, an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".

In March, the campaign group Medact said 18,000 physicians had left the country since 2003, an estimated 250 of those that remained had been kidnapped and, in 2005 alone, 65 killed.

Medact also said "easily treatable conditions such as diarrhoea and respiratory illness caused 70 per cent of all child deaths", and that " of the 180 health clinics the US hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed and none opened".

Writing in the British Medical Journal today, Dr Basssim Al Sheibani and two colleagues from the Diwaniyah College of Medicine in Iraq says that, as the violence escalates, "the reality is we cannot provide any treatment for many of the victims."

"Emergency departments are staffed by doctors who do not have the proper experience or skills to manage emergency cases. Medical staff ... admit that more than half of those killed could have been saved if trained and experienced staff were available."

They say equipment, supplies and drugs are in many cases unobtainable. " Many emergency departments are no more than halls with beds, fluid suckers and oxygen bottles."

They add: "Our experience has taught us that poor emergency medicine services are more disastrous than the disaster itself. But despite the daily violence that is crushing Iraq, the international medical community is doing little more than looking on"

The shortages were graphically highlighted in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary made by GuardianFilms, and broadcast in February. It revealed that children with diarrhoeal disease were dying of dehydration because hospitals lacked the right sized needles to inject them with fluids.

In Diwaniyah children's hospital, doctors were shown struggling to give drugs by ventilation to a two-day old girl, Zehara, who was born with underdeveloped lungs, because they had the wrong sized plastic mask. Masks costs pennies but, like all other equipment, are in short supply.

Zehara's father was dispatched on to the streets to try to buy Vitamin K on the black market, urgently needed for an injection. But it was too late - by the time he returned, she was dead and her twin brother also passed away shortly afterwards.

In a separate report yesterday, Peter Kandela, an Iraqi doctor who has practised as a GP in Surrey for 30 years, travelled through Jordan and Syria interviewing Iraqi medical staff who had escaped the violence.

"The current Iraqi brain drain is the worst the country has seen in its modern history," he writes

"In the new Iraq there is a price tag linked to your position and status. Those doctors who have stayed in the country know what they are worth in kidnapping terms and ensure their relatives have easy access to the necessary funds to secure their speedy release if they are taken."

He describes a kidney surgeon seized by a group of armed men, despite the presence of security guards who he had hired to protect himself, whose first act was to go through his contacts book for other potential victims. " They had the audacity to suggest that in return for receiving better treatment inn captivity I should recommend others for kidnapping", the surgeon said.

He was released unharmed after a ransom of $250,000 was paid by his wife.

In Baghdad where no one can escape violence, hospitals provided the last refuge. But they are now unsafe and Iraqis are avoiding them. Public hospitals in the city are controlled by Shiia - who have come under suspicion for allowing death squads to enter them to kill Sunnis.

Abu Nasr, the cousin of a man injured in a car bomb who was dragged from his hospital bed and riddled with bullets, told the Washington Post: "We would prefer now to die instead of going to the hospitals. I will never go back to one, never. The hospitals have become killing fields."

Medical notes
34,000 The number of Iraqi physicians registered before the 2003 war.

18,000 The estimated number of Iraqi physicians who have left since the 2003 invasion.

2,000 The estimated number of Iraqi physicians murdered since 2003.

250 The number of Iraqi physicians kidnapped.

34 The number of reconstructive surgeons in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

20 The number who have either been murdered of fled. 72 per cent of Iraqis needing reconstructive surgery are suffering from gunshot or blast wounds.

164 The number of nurses murdered - 77 wounded.

$243,000,000 The amount of money set aside by US administration to build 142 private health clinics in post-invastion Iraq.

20 The number of such clinics built by April 2006.

$0 The amount of money left over.

$1bn The amount of money the US administration has spent on Iraq's healthcare system.

$8bn The amount of money needed over the next 4 years to fund the health care system

70 the percentage of deaths among children caused by "easily treatable conditions" such as diarrhoea and respiratory illnesses.

270,000 The number of children born after 2003 who have had no immunisations.

HEALTH INDICATORS:

68 per cent of Iraqis with no access to safe drinking water.

19 per cent of Iraqis with sewerage access.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Tee Jay - I feel it necessary to point out to people on these boards that you were an active supporter of the war and were still trying to convince us of the existence of WMD long after everyone bar pbman and tony blair had given up.
I supported military action but your comment about WMD is pure bullshit. You probably don't even remember what I said about WMD - I guess you are just making this up because you simply assume that is what I would have been saying.

Just like you not reading the report (which is very short and easy to read by the way) and making conclusions without actuially knowing what you are talking about, you don't seem to have much knowledge about what I said about WMD, either before or after the invasion.
 
TeeJay said:
I supported military action but your comment about WMD is pure bullshit. You probably don't even remember what I said about WMD - I guess you are just making this up because you simply assume that is what I would have been saying.

Just like you not reading the report (which is very short and easy to read by the way) and making conclusions without actuially knowing what you are talking about, you don't seem to have much knowledge about what I said about WMD, either before or after the invasion.

If you supported military action (classic euphemism) then, in all probability, you supported the ridiculous reason for going to war; which was WMD.

You're just an empty warhead, who can't get through your heid that this war was prosecuted on a lie. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, doesn't seem to bother you at all. You have no humanity nor do you have any compassion. All you can do is come out with some cheap crap about how these figures are 'bogus', yet you have provided nothing conclusive to support your horrid thesis. You are an apologist for this war. Tell me that you aren't and I will call you a liar.

How the fuck do you sleep at night?
 
TeeJay said:
I supported military action but your comment about WMD is pure bullshit. You probably don't even remember what I said about WMD - I guess you are just making this up because you simply assume that is what I would have been saying.

Just like you not reading the report (which is very short and easy to read by the way) and making conclusions without actuially knowing what you are talking about, you don't seem to have much knowledge about what I said about WMD, either before or after the invasion.

Yes you did - you were professing your faith in secret documents which the public weren't allowed to see. This was the last bit threadbare 'evidence' being touted by Blair and co some 18 months after the war - after everything in the public realm had been revealed as totally bogus.

I remember arguing with you about it at the time. I couldn't devide at the time if you were being hopelessly niave or promoting some sort of agenda. Your reaction to the lancet report makes me think it was the latter.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Yes you did - you were professing your faith in secret documents which the public weren't allowed to see.
What the fuck are you talking about?

How the fuck would I know about any 'secret documents'?

You really are grasping at straws here. Give up.
 
Truthfully?

That I can't be arsed trying to debate this any more with people here, because I don't see people giving genuinely consideration to various points raised, just automatic, knee-jerk attacks.

It might be true that I supported the initial military action but I have not supported all the actions and policies since then, did not try and argue about either the importance or existance of WMD, have no desire to deny any Iraqi deaths which have genuinely happened (see other threads I have started about the number of deaths in various otherwise ignored conflicts, eg Algeria and DRC, and my argument about trying to choose 'the lesser of two evils'). It is laughable to attack bodies such as the Iraq Body Count as being pro-Bush propagandists and to make a vast number of assumptions to rubbish various issues raised rather than keep an open mind and address them.

Sorry that this is not specific but frankly the whole tone of this thread and the way people are approaching this colours the whole thing and I have no stomache to try and make a honest effort to debate with people who I find repellant and laughable by turns.

This doesn't apply equally to everyone of course, and no doubt this will be seen as victory by people who say I am now running away, but ultimately far left extremists and far right extremists both end up in their own isolated ghettos snarling at people they dislike and labelling anyone to their left/right as 'extreme' themselves.

I'll leave people to talk to each other in their 'believe anything as long as it confirms their prejudices - question nothing if it is useful, regardless of any 'reality check' failures it throws up - make personal attacks on people insetad of engaging in honest and open-minded debate'.

Bye.

*unsubscribes from thread*
 
TeeJay said:
Truthfully?

That I can't be arsed trying to debate this any more with people here, because I don't see people giving genuinely consideration to various points raised, just automatic, knee-jerk attacks.

It might be true that I supported the initial military action but I have not supported all the actions and policies since then, did not try and argue about either the importance or existance of WMD, have no desire to deny any Iraqi deaths which have genuinely happened (see other threads I have started about the number of deaths in various otherwise ignored conflicts, eg Algeria and DRC, and my argument about trying to choose 'the lesser of two evils'). It is laughable to attack bodies such as the Iraq Body Count as being pro-Bush propagandists and to make a vast number of assumptions to rubbish various issues raised rather than keep an open mind and address them.

Sorry that this is not specific but frankly the whole tone of this thread and the way people are approaching this colours the whole thing and I have no stomache to try and make a honest effort to debate with people who I find repellant and laughable by turns.

This doesn't apply equally to everyone of course, and no doubt this will be seen as victory by people who say I am now running away, but ultimately far left extremists and far right extremists both end up in their own isolated ghettos snarling at people they dislike and labelling anyone to their left/right as 'extreme' themselves.

I'll leave people to talk to each other in their 'believe anything as long as it confirms their prejudices - question nothing if it is useful, regardless of any 'reality check' failures it throws up - make personal attacks on people insetad of engaging in honest and open-minded debate'.

Bye.

*unsubscribes from thread*
Wow, that's a spectacularly dishonest disengagement.

As far as I recall, all the points that I raised were purely from a scientific point of view and I haven't brought politics into it at all. And indeed most people who responded to you provided
a) evidence
b) rational argument.
c) an understanding of scientific methodolgoy

Only one person really concentrated on your motives.

Dude, you're running away with a parting slander because you don't understand this stuff and are just hoovering little factoids off the internet. As a result of this forensic approach, you are incapable of defending your position against people who do understand this stuff.

Toodle-pip!
 
TeeJay said:
What the fuck are you talking about?

How the fuck would I know about any 'secret documents'?

You really are grasping at straws here. Give up.


Because Blair publicly stated that they existed and had convinced him of the need to attack Iraq - and when people on these boards were describing this as laughably transparent bullshit you sprang to his defence. You may not remember - but - witnessing your behaviour on this thread where you are prepared to vociferously argue that the neo-con's coordinated smeer campaign is a more reliable indicator of the truth then the Lancet - I think you remember very well.
 
TeeJay said:
Truthfully?

That I can't be arsed trying to debate this any more with people here, because I don't see people giving genuinely consideration to various points raised, just automatic, knee-jerk attacks.

It might be true that I supported the initial military action but I have not supported all the actions and policies since then, did not try and argue about either the importance or existance of WMD, have no desire to deny any Iraqi deaths which have genuinely happened (see other threads I have started about the number of deaths in various otherwise ignored conflicts, eg Algeria and DRC, and my argument about trying to choose 'the lesser of two evils'). It is laughable to attack bodies such as the Iraq Body Count as being pro-Bush propagandists and to make a vast number of assumptions to rubbish various issues raised rather than keep an open mind and address them.

Sorry that this is not specific but frankly the whole tone of this thread and the way people are approaching this colours the whole thing and I have no stomache to try and make a honest effort to debate with people who I find repellant and laughable by turns.

This doesn't apply equally to everyone of course, and no doubt this will be seen as victory by people who say I am now running away, but ultimately far left extremists and far right extremists both end up in their own isolated ghettos snarling at people they dislike and labelling anyone to their left/right as 'extreme' themselves.

I'll leave people to talk to each other in their 'believe anything as long as it confirms their prejudices - question nothing if it is useful, regardless of any 'reality check' failures it throws up - make personal attacks on people insetad of engaging in honest and open-minded debate'.

Bye.

*unsubscribes from thread*


You're a coward. You also have no intention of debating anything. You want to claim that it's "someone else's fault" that you can't 'debate'. All you have done is question the numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths and pretend that they have all been "made up". You have offered nothing to support your thesis.

You're dishonest too. You claimed that you supported the military action but didn't believe in the existence of WMD but as Kaka Tim pointed out, you accepted the US and UK government's position on WMD and the supported the claims made in the documents.

You claim everyone else but you is an "extremist" for not agreeing with you. That's typical of you: you can't get your own way, so you throw a strop.

Goodbye and good riddance.
 
It's more likely that the figures are woefully underestimated, and that over the last three years there have been millions killed, not hundreds of thousands.

A Luther Blissett guestimate based on similar type of post-WWI 'ethnic cleansing*' of inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabagh region by Russian-Armenian forces commanded by General 'Dro' of 2.5 million Azari Tats over 2 years using convential 'hand-to-hand' slaughter methods could push the death toll in Iraq over these last 3.6 years to around 4.5 million [(2.5/2)*3.6=4.5]

US forces+death squads have not been using WWI methods of person-at-person slaughter, so the toll on Iraqi citizens since March 2003 could be far higher than the Lancet's estimate.


*genocide
 
TeeJay said:
Truthfully?

That I can't be arsed trying to debate this any more with people here, because I don't see people giving genuinely consideration to various points raised, just automatic, knee-jerk attacks.

It might be true that I supported the initial military action but I have not supported all the actions and policies since then, did not try and argue about either the importance or existance of WMD, have no desire to deny any Iraqi deaths which have genuinely happened (see other threads I have started about the number of deaths in various otherwise ignored conflicts, eg Algeria and DRC, and my argument about trying to choose 'the lesser of two evils'). It is laughable to attack bodies such as the Iraq Body Count as being pro-Bush propagandists and to make a vast number of assumptions to rubbish various issues raised rather than keep an open mind and address them.

Sorry that this is not specific but frankly the whole tone of this thread and the way people are approaching this colours the whole thing and I have no stomache to try and make a honest effort to debate with people who I find repellant and laughable by turns.

This doesn't apply equally to everyone of course, and no doubt this will be seen as victory by people who say I am now running away, but ultimately far left extremists and far right extremists both end up in their own isolated ghettos snarling at people they dislike and labelling anyone to their left/right as 'extreme' themselves.

I'll leave people to talk to each other in their 'believe anything as long as it confirms their prejudices - question nothing if it is useful, regardless of any 'reality check' failures it throws up - make personal attacks on people insetad of engaging in honest and open-minded debate'.

Bye.

*unsubscribes from thread*
Neither gurrier or I have once questioned your motives or brought politics into it. Neither have we raised spurious points. We've just taken issue with your poor understanding of the stats and a tendency to grab anything that looks like a pseudo-response without looking at it critically.
 
Long-silent Iraqi blogger Riverbend has re-appeared with this piece on the Lancet study.
The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?

The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy Iraqis…)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable. And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would have you believe).

For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.
source
 
Back
Top Bottom