Iraq casualty count by Lancet

[The Terrible Sweal]

Perhaps the best known estimate of civilian deaths from the fighting is that of the Iraq Body Count project.[5] This British-based group of researchers has systematically examined the western press and collated all accounts of civilian casualties.

In order to address the question of how many Iraqi deaths have occurred, a team of public health researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Columbia University School of Nursing, and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad undertook an epidemiologic survey of "excess Iraqi" deaths since the March, 2003 invasion.[10]

I think it may be important to point out ... these are almost certain to be two entirely different numbers, based on these descriptions. It is certainly plausible that excess mortality during prolonged conflicts could well exceed direct casualties alone.

[Guest eureka]

The IBC count is most certainly not credible as a record of Iraqi deaths due to the war while the Lancet account is.

The largere number is death as a consequence of war: the smaller is a count of bodies - more or less.

Even the slightest understanding of what warfare brings would inform one that deaths, particularly in Iraq, are vastly higher than those counted.

Someone posted earlier about the effects of disease. There are also malnutrition and rising infant mortality; deaths from the lack of medical supplies and treatment; deaths from injuries received. Many factors come into this and are not counted as direct deaths.

There are also thousands of known deaths of many who are called insurgents or terrorist, again as someone posted . Many more of those have died as a consequence of their wounds but they are not visible for count.

I suspect that the 100,000 figure will prove to be extremely conservaive.

[Argus]

I don't think that article does a very good job 'discrediting' the Lancet article.  It makes valid comments on the ability for the conclusion to be precise, without showing any likely fundamental problem with the general approximation. 

I would say mis-estimating the mortality rate before the war to be pretty damned fundamental. The whole basis of this study is to compare the mortality rate after the war to the mortality rate before the war.

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw ... , within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale ... First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000... Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

In order to determine if this actually undermines the Johns Hopkins study, we would need to inquire into the respective validity of Daponte vs. Johns Hopkins mortality estimates.

Well, there are definitive quotes using UN figures. First, that the rate was 8.1 in the years from 1980-85, and 6.8 in the years leading up to Gulf War One. The article then states the figures thereafter are murkier but clearly go up, not down.

Frankly, having no information either way I find it incredible to believe that the figure could possibly go down. Remember, the UN figures showed 6.8. Then we had the first war, which certainly didn't help, followed by years of sanctions where we kept hearing about people dying by the millions due to lack of medicine, malnutrition, poverty, etc.. Can you possibly say the mortality rate actually declined! in that period from the 6.8 the UN recorded prior to Gulf War One all the way down to 5? And if it increased, even by a little, then the Johns Hopkins' researchers conclusions are completely in the toilet.

[August1991]

The IBC count is most certainly not credible as a record of Iraqi deaths due to the war while the Lancet account is.

You are an authority on this question, eureka?

Or have you simply decided the data is wrong because it doesn't show what you want to believe?

[Argus]

Even the slightest understanding of what warfare brings would inform one that deaths, particularly in Iraq, are vastly higher than those counted.

Someone posted earlier about the effects of disease. There are also malnutrition and rising infant mortality; deaths from the lack of medical supplies and treatment; deaths from injuries received. Many factors come into this and are not counted as direct deaths.

But I do have such an understanding. What I don't understand is how a 6.8 mortality rate (by UN estimate) manages to go DOWN during Gulf War One, and the 10 years of sanctions which followed. Because it had to go way down to get to the "5" per 100,000 the Lancet study uses. Perhaps you can explain to me how that happened.

[Guest eureka]

The authority should be in your own vision. The IBC count, which I have been watching for some time, measures only direct fatalitles. It measures only those that are capable of observation. It does not include all the other sources of death and disease - which is what I posted about.

The very idea that the 16 plus thousand of direct deaths is the total of casualties is an absurdity.

You can play around with the statistics of estimated -and as yet, unprovable-death rates all you want. They do not alter the reality of the deaths from all war related causes.

[Guest eureka]

The Johns Hopkins study has also been peer reviewed. It also speaks of possible flaws in its estimates. The flaws are not such as to invalidate the conclusions but only to refine the numbers.

Who Fred Kaplan is, I don't know. But, whoever he is, I ould give more credence to his criticism if he could produce knowledgeable support for his disbelief instead of carefully guarded statements.

The IBC count is, as I said, a measure of only direct and observable fatalities and is only a compilation from media reports. Those reports, as is well known, are only those available to sources with the military and are limited to only those that the military considers civilian.

Itincludes ( so it claims) all those deaths that the occupiers have a binding requirement to report under the Geneva Convention. Since we know that the uS considers most of the Iraqi resistance to be not covered under the Geneva Convention and since there have been many media reports of multiple deaths of civilians that the US military has claimed to be those of insurgents or collaborators, there is a very large count that is not included - even of direct deaths.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

What I don't understand is how a 6.8 mortality rate (by UN estimate) manages to go DOWN during Gulf War One, and the 10 years of sanctions which followed. Because it had to go way down to get to the "5" per 100,000 the Lancet study uses. Perhaps you can explain to me how that happened.

Quite simple. Iraq was not at war on it's homeland during this time. They had just come out of 8 years of war with Iran not long before the Kuwaiti invasion. In Gulf I, Kuwait was liberated, but no incursions into Iraq were made. Apart from the near daily bombings over the next 10 years by the US and UK, there were no major hostilities on Iraqi soil.

Further, the 'Oil for Food' sanctions, (Dubious as they may have been, as some hold regarding the UN) meant that Iraq could no longer trade Oil for Arms, and lacked the ability to prosecute any war or like activity. Therefore, while the sanctions were meant to "Keep Saddam in his box", they were probably the most peaceful and abundant times the average Iraqi had seen for many years, including this one.

[caesar]

OSLO - Malnutrition among the youngest children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the U.S.-led invasion of that country, according to a survey done by Norwegian researchers, the United Nations and the Iraqi government.

reall nice eh

[Tawasakm]

I would still like you to explain to me, caesar, how the Iraq body count site is a propagandist site.

Blackdog, your link was an eye opener. The study was much better then I had previously concluded. On the face of it their results are certainly conservative.

The only thing that troubles me is this: the question of what the pre-war mortality rate was. Until that is answered any of the figures released by the lancet report are questionable. While the Iraqi Body Count site is likely to be on the low scale it has the benefit of being certain of that which is counted.

I was curious to know if anybody knows of any reliable studies that could come up with an accurate account of the mortality rate pre-war that isn't based on supposition type reasoning? When somebody says that the mortality rate is likley to have dropped because there was no war or fighting in that period it is a reasonable assumption but lacks the thoroughness of well collected data. To get as accurate a picture as we may we need to have a more certain grasp of the pre-war figures. Then, I believe, the data collected in the Lancet report can be used far more effectively.

Well thats my two cents worth.

[caesar]

I would still like you to explain to me, caesar, how the Iraq body count site is a propagandist site.

Because it is old; American; and headlines; we don't do body counts. I think anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the Iraqi death total is much higher than this report.

[Tawasakm]

Because it is old; American; and headlines; we don't do body counts. I think anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the Iraqi death total is much higher than this report.

It is clear to me caesar that you are not paying the courtesy of reading my posts before responding to them. It is not old (If by old you mean out of date) - its latest figures are from this month. It is not American. It is independent and operating out of London. The "We don't do body counts" quote (I THINK THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I'VE TOLD YOU) is taken from General Franks and is the reason the site exists! They want to make sure there IS one. The total may well be higher then what they postulate. That has already been discussed (explained well by BD). But there is no indication that they are doing anything less then their best to produce an accurate count. The credentials of all involved are excellent - and have been detailed elsewhere in this thread.

caesar since it is so apparent to me that you are not actually reading my posts in detail before responding to them I now will withdraw the courtesy of responding to yours.

[MapleBear]

Tawasakm wrote:

It is clear to me caesar that you are not paying the courtesy of reading my posts before responding to them. It is not old (If by old you mean out of date) - its latest figures are from this month. It is not American. It is independent and operating out of London.

Old can be an advantage. The Lancet is an old organization that is well respected. IraqBodyCount is relatively new and should be scrutinized.

How do you know it isn't American? Iraq's puppet government isn't American, either. My websites aren't hosted in America.

If it really is based in London, so what? Is the United Kingdom free of corruption and propaganda?

But there is no indication that they are doing anything less then their best to produce an accurate count. The credentials of all involved are excellent - and have been detailed elsewhere in this thread.

I did a cursory survey that raised a few flags. They linked to Common Dreams and some other progressive site I don't trust. Common Dreams often features articles by Geov Parrish, a Seattle columnist who's effectively a corporate operative. Are the folks at Common Dreams also corrupt, or are they just clueless? Does it make much difference?

I also saw a link to a "Stop the War Coalition." We have organizations with similar names here in Seattle. They're corrupt.

Here's how it works: The White House knows that if they don't do a body count, someone else will do it for them. So if an organization like the Lancet reports 100,000 civilian casualties, how are you going to refute them if you haven't done a body count?

The solution is to create your own organization, and make it sound official. You might even add a few features to make it sound LIBERAL. Then use your operative to tell the public that no more than 16,000 Iraqi civlians have been killed.

Similar tactics are widely used across the United States - there are phony alternative media, phony activist groups and phony political forums.

[Argus]

I also saw a link to a "Stop the War Coalition." We have organizations with similar names here in Seattle. They're corrupt.

Corrupt in what way? That they don't promote violence?

[MapleBear]

Corrupt in what way? That they don't promote violence?

Corrupt in that they aren't what they say they are. Thus, they're in a position to disinform people, waste their time and energy, even report them to Homeland Security.

Of course, this is the kind of observation that prompts many right-wingers to cry "conspiracy theory!" Of course, it IS a conspiracy theory, but there's no need for quotes.

Let's apply a little logic. George W. Bush and the corporations that support him are in control of the most powerful propaganda machine in world history. So what's their favorite mouthpiece - Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

Think about it - only the most brain-dead right-wingers listen to Fox News and Limbaugh. Thus, George Bush, Inc. need less obvious right-wing media, like the Washington Post and the Seattle Times. But more intelligent people can easily see the corruption in these papers, too.

But what if corporate America controlled LIBERAL media - or media that pretend to be liberal? What if Common Dreams, CounterPunch and the Seattle Weekly were actually working for Republicans, or, more precisely, for corporations?

To dupe more intelligent readers, they would have to print some truthful articles, and they'd have to attack the very people they're working for - but they do it in a very clever manner. In particular, the only "activists" they mention are their own - people who aren't really activists. Run for public office on a reform platform, and you don't even exist.

As for not promoting violence, that's another clue that they're corrupt. Not that they should urge readers to start a civil war, but they go overboard in preaching non-violence. Some of these groups spend so much time preaching the gospel of non-violence, it's a wonder they find time to teach anything else.

What's really disgusting is their gospel of civility - they urge readers to be polite at all times. Their harshest stance is "Impeach Bush," when it should be "Jail for Bush" or worse. (See my website, which the media have completely ignored.)

In order to reign in still more intelligent liberals and independents, some of these tabloids do indeed call Bush names, breaking their own doctrine of civility. But their patriotism is still a mile wide and an inch deep.

[Argus]

But what if corporate America controlled LIBERAL media - or media that pretend to be liberal? What if Common Dreams, CounterPunch and the Seattle Weekly were actually working for Republicans, or, more precisely, for corporations?

To dupe more intelligent readers, they would have to print some truthful articles, and they'd have to attack the very people they're working for - but they do it in a very clever manner. In particular, the only "activists" they mention are their own - people who aren't really activists. Run for public office on a reform platform, and you don't even exist.

As for not promoting violence, that's another clue that they're corrupt. Not that they should urge readers to start a civil war, but they go overboard in preaching non-violence. Some of these groups spend so much time preaching the gospel of non-violence, it's a wonder they find time to teach anything else.

I don't automatically rule out "conspiracy theories". After all, people conspire all the time. Why wouldn't they? However, the probabilities of succesful conspiracies plummet in inverse proportion to the number of those who are needed to be involved. A conspiracy involving thousands, or in this case tens of thousands of people (maybe even hundreds of thousands) is simply nonsensical.

[MapleBear]

I don't automatically rule out "conspiracy theories". After all, people conspire all the time. Why wouldn't they? However, the probabilities of succesful conspiracies plummet in inverse proportion to the number of those who are needed to be involved.

Agreed.

A conspiracy involving thousands, or in this case tens of thousands of people (maybe even hundreds of thousands) is simply nonsensical.

Not agreed.

Yes, big conspiracies are presumably harder to keep quiet than small conspiracies, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I used to believe as you do - until I started investigating the "Seattle Mafia" and later corruption on the national and interntional level.

Remember - Just one person revealed the Pentagon Papers - and he nearly went to prison for it.

How many people broke the Watergate story? As I recall, the identity of "Deepthroat" is still unknown.

What do we know about the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Not much.

How many people are speaking out against some of the extraordinary scandals in public education, scandals that are eerily similar across America and even in other nations? Even Ralph Nader imitates Democrats in simply begging for more money without accountability.

Consider just one public school district - Seattle. Several years ago, the business community recruited a retired general and friend of Colin Powell to serve as superintendent, but more precisely to help them achieve a corporate takeover.

Stanford's corruption and megalomania were astounding - and obvious. He wrecked entire schools and even exploited the city's students in an extraordinary public blackmail attempt.

The Seattle School District employes nearly 5,000 educators and serves nearly 50,000 students. So how many teachers and parents publicly spoke out against John Stanford with any gusto?

Basically, just one. You can see my website at www.johnstanford.org

And who besides me has exposed Geov Parrish, a nationally syndicated left-wing columnist? I'm aware of no one.

[Black Dog]

I did a cursory survey that raised a few flags. They linked to Common Dreams and some other progressive site I don't trust. Common Dreams often features articles by Geov Parrish, a Seattle columnist who's effectively a corporate operative. Are the folks at Common Dreams also corrupt, or are they just clueless? Does it make much difference?

I also saw a link to a "Stop the War Coalition." We have organizations with similar names here in Seattle. They're corrupt.

I can't help noticing a total lack of evidence to support your claims, which simply beggar belief.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you're the G.O.P operative.

[MapleBear]

I can't help noticing a total lack of evidence to support your claims, which simply beggar belief.

Evidence? You want evidence? Where do you want me to begin?

I don't have time to write a chapter about Geov Parrish, the Stop the War Coalition and on and on, but give you something even better - a kind of evidence that you can use to help evaluate a wide range of individuals and organizations.

It's really simple: Check out their websites.

Let's start with a little logic. The Internet is perhaps the most powerful form of communication ever invented. Moreover, it isn't terribly difficult to make a website these days, and it doesn't cost much to host them.

Therefore, any individual who claims to be an activist ought to have a website, right? Moreover, they ought to have a credible website.

Organizations have even less excuse for not having a decent website.

Now do some research on Geov Parrish, and you'll quickly discover that he's a viral left-wing activist. He's participated in protests, hung out with anarchists and interviewed important progressives.

So where the Hell's his website???

Sure, he has hundreds of articles online, but why doesn't he pull his information together and make a reference section? Why doesn't he help political newbies by hammering out 10 basic rules of activism, or whatever?

If you knew anything about public education - especially about Seattle's public schools - I could blow you away with what this kook has written on THAT topic.

In fact, I have a Geov Parrish page online. I can't even remember the URL offhand; I'm in the process of moving and revising all my websites. But if you type "Geov Parrish" and "Blomstrom" into Google, you'll probably find it.

And see if you can find a Seattle "Stop Bush Coalition," or something like that. Talk about a LAME website! Sheez, can Seattle liberals muster enough energy to cook spaghetti???

[Black Dog]

It's really simple: Check out their websites.

Let's start with a little logic. The Internet is perhaps the most powerful form of communication ever invented. Moreover, it isn't terribly difficult to make a website these days, and it doesn't cost much to host them.

Therefore, any individual who claims to be an activist ought to have a website, right? Moreover, they ought to have a credible website.

That's it? That's the basis of your kooky little conspiracy? Oh brother.

Surely if these people were the double agents you allege they are, they would have top-notch web sites for dissemenating their misinformation and to distract from the "demons in their midst".

Now do some research on Geov Parrish, and you'll quickly discover that he's a viral left-wing activist. He's participated in protests, hung out with anarchists and interviewed important progressives.

So where the Hell's his website???

Sure, he has hundreds of articles online, but why doesn't he pull his information together and make a reference section? Why doesn't he help political newbies by hammering out 10 basic rules of activism, or whatever

Geov Parish archive

You also seem to be labouring under the impression that grassroots activist organizations must have piles of cash to use on establishing a web presence and stuff. Most of these organizations are small, funded mainly by donations and staffed by volunteers. they don't have a lot of money.

It's apparent you have some sort of personal vendetta here, and a profound case of sour grapes:

What's really disgusting is their gospel of civility - they urge readers to be polite at all times. Their harshest stance is "Impeach Bush," when it should be "Jail for Bush" or worse. (See my website, which the media have completely ignored.)

[Tawasakm]

One quick point MapleBear. You said this:

I also saw a link to a "Stop the War Coalition." We have organizations with similar names here in Seattle. They're corrupt.

A similarity of names does not indicate a similarity of nature - even if the organisations you are referring to in Seattle really are corrupt.