h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

THat's fair, except that the Iraq body count website mis-represented what was in the report. To me, that suggests binning their criticism. Or just taking it with a pound of salt.

No Arnie, people on here misunderstood the Iraq Body Count website. They explained where they were getting their numbers from on that page, albeit rather clumsily.

OK - me too, I mis understood where they got their numbers from.

So were they explaining where they got their numbers from in a clumsy manner, or were they deliberately obsfucating?

"based on the different proportions of weaponry reported in Table 4 of the Lancet paper," is the misleading phrase I think. I'd go with cock-up theory and call it poor writing. This is why its a good idea to proof-read a piece out loud.

Of course, regardless of Iraq Body Count's credibility or otherwise, their argument is still there: would you expect an equivalent amount number of injuries to the number of deaths (I suppose I would), and is it then suspect that these expected injuries aren't in hospital records (I dunno?)?

I have written a relatively long post on my blog giving all my thoughts about this. I can repost it in this conversation if anyone would like? Otherwise take a look at it on my blog:

http://thesamovar.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/that-lancet-report/

<<"Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;"
...
" If these assertions are true, they further imply:
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;">>

Which could simply reflect a lack of access to hospitals, rather than self-destructive behaviour!

Honestly!