coxandforkumMorgan at Flares has an excellent analysis of the recent propaganda study on "additional" deaths in Iraq that you will want to consult when debating moonbats:
The most reasonable way to account for the extreme discrepancies between the numbers reported in the Lancet and those arrived at by common sense and alternative calculations is this - the Lancet researchers' results were skewed by the choice of "alternative" sites by Riyadh Lafta, by methodological bias toward urban areas that were heavily impacted by violence, or both.
You may disagree. Maybe there is something missing from my thinking that makes these events far more likely to go unreported in Iraq than in Bosnia. But there is a relatively simple way to determine who is correct. The Lancet researchers report that subjects were able to produce death certificates for 92% of deaths. That means there is no need for population-based surveys. Instead, we can simply ask those issuing death certificates for a simple count.
Care to fund that study, MIT?
2 comments:
Yes, that did work out rather well TP. I'll be back as well.
Exactly my point. The veracity of any poll is a total farce, not only due to the framing of the question, but also due to the majority who elect to answer are not correctly or even fully informed.
Very similar to when you stop the car and ask for directions from someone who IMAGINES he knows the answer to you query.
When the Underwriters Lab for polls is established, you will be able to trust the results with one grain less of salt. = TG
Post a Comment