« Pat Sajak Solves the Global Warming Crisis | Main | Greedy Moonbats Sue America for $3 Quadrillion »
January 9, 2008
Lancet Study Revealed as Hard Left Propaganda
Moonbattery is corrupting even science. At least with the global warming hoax, you can understand the motives of scientists who acquire grant money by using computer models to produce data pleasing to the power-hungry bureauweenies who stand to benefit from climate change hysteria. But the scope of leftist propaganda trumping factual reality is broader. For example, The Wall Street Journal reports on the moonbat shenanigans at the Lancet:
Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident.
Details appear in the current issue of National Journal magazine. Fortunately for the Lancet's exalted reputation, they probably won't show up anywhere else:
While the media were quick to hype the original Lancet report — within a week of its release it had been featured on 25 news shows and in 188 newspaper and magazine articles — something tells us this debunking won't get the same play.
The Lancet death toll was inflated by a factor of more than 10. What do you expect, considering that the study was funded by George Soros's Open Society Institute?
The authors of the study, Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts, admitted that they opposed removing Saddam Hussein from the outset and sent their report to the Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election. Roberts even tried running for Congress as a Democrat.
The data was collected by Riyadh Lafta, who would not let other researchers see his data, and who had been an official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of health.
Lancet Editor Richard Horton rushed the bogus study into print in time for the election "with an expedited peer review process and without seeing the surveyors' original data." His political views are what you would expect from a snot-nosed 13-year-old. At a September 2006 rally he proclaimed:
This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease.
Thanks to the epidemic of moonbattery, this sort of jackass is in a position to replace scientific research with treasonous lies.
On a tip from Varla.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 9, 2008 9:54 AM
Comments
This study was an obvious political hack job from the start, and has been used as primary evidence to make the case for the immorality of the American war effort. The methodolgy used is very susceptible to tampering and can be easily skewed to the desired results. The revelation that it is completely bogus should be front page news. However, the response has been predictable. Try Googling "lancet study iraq" for news to see how much press this is getting. Most of the hits still cite the study as proof of American atrocities.
Posted by: Beef at January 9, 2008 11:28 AM
Horton (Sees a Who) has the look of the Hildabeast in his eyes: hatred for everything American; certain knowledge that the European socialists have all the answers, especially that "It's always America's fault;" belief that their new buds, the Islamofascists, will let them retain their privileged lifestyles upon the founding of the Caliphate (though in fact they'll be the first to lose their heads); lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to gain and retain power -- these people are so pathetically ignorant, so naive, they're actually dangerous (to rational human beings, unfortunately, and not just to themselves).
Posted by: jc14 at January 9, 2008 11:49 AM
So often I have seen so called scientists doing medical research where the only data they used in their studies were those bits of information that supported their hypothesis. Any data that did not support their hypothesis was thrown out and not mentioned. If no data supported their hypothesis, then statistical fudging could be used to help promote their hypothesis. This story is really no different. The term "Medical science" has become an oxymoron, even in the realm of politics.
Posted by: Gordon_Freeman at January 9, 2008 12:48 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22571349/?GT1=10755
Can someone explain how the federal government is liable for acts of Nature like Katrina? This is a ridiculous use of court system.
Posted by: mandy at January 9, 2008 1:09 PM
The report sourced data from an apologist for Saddam who refused to provide the data and used flawed methodology.
go figure...
Posted by: DANEgerus at January 9, 2008 4:58 PM
The Lancet Study, whether you like the results or not, is entirely credible, guys. I don't like the 600,000 Iraqi death toll any more than you do. Spend three or four tours in Iraq and you'll understand. Without that firsthand insight, you can opine all you want, but make no mistake: you're opining with immense naivety.
Posted by: gary at January 9, 2008 7:07 PM
Does the Lancet study also not take into account the close-knit communities in the middle-east?
e.g several households asked about deaths could all be referring to one person: brother/cousin/father/friend/etc ?
Posted by: xantl at January 9, 2008 7:15 PM
to Gary,
Actually the study says "CASUALTIES in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003", not the "Iraqi death-toll". Of course I'm sure you would prefer that it was the death toll.
Also it does not say if the casualties were Iraqi, America and her allies, or both combined.
And last but not least, I doubt if you served any tours over there(at least in the military).
Posted by: Ludwig Van Beethoven at January 9, 2008 8:29 PM
Oh, please. The study has been thoroughly discredited. I mean the original study with much lower numbers. Apparently, they wanted even more attention so they attempted the Big Lie.
If the data is so good, why won't the "scientists" release the raw data to other scientists to review? This is SOP in real science. Why have they refused for all these years?
The study was a fraud, just like so much other left-wing propaganda. The dishonesty of you folks on the left really disgusts me.
I'm also not buying your implication that you have done four tours in Iraq. Did you hook up with Jesse Macbeth while you were over there?
Posted by: ent at January 9, 2008 8:49 PM
Anyone who's interested, Here's the video of Horton's raving speech about imperialism at that 2006 rally.
Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at January 10, 2008 12:06 AM
Last night on the discovery Channel, they had a count-down of ten "most influential weapons", but none of my choices were listed. (I was thinking "weapon systems", they were thinking "individual weapons") Unsatisfied, I made my own list:
THE NUMBER ONE WEAPON (for me) IS:
Popaganda.
You don't even have to wait for a WAR to use it and your enemies will spread it themselves! It caused the "loss" of the Viet Nam war for the US. We beat the communists in battle (THEY TOLD US SO, LIBERALS!), but were convinced by the neo-communist LEFTIES that we were losing!
When the history books for this war are written, credit for countering the enemy propaganda should go to the "keyboard warriors" on the internet.
Posted by: KHarn at January 10, 2008 3:04 PM
