Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: war deaths

  1. #1

    war deaths

    Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
    Brendan Montague

    A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

    Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

    The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

    New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

    “The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

    The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

    His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

    Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

    Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

  2. #2
    Nice find. I am sure the Times and its liberal brethren will be printing a correction on the same page and with as much copy space as the original........ sure.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Great drop Neil. Where have you been?

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2314854]Great drop Neil. Where have you been?[/QUOTE]

    So tell me doc, do you automatically discount a study if it was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company??

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,804
    That really does make it much better. 151,000.

    If the average Iraqi is 5'5" and you stacked them all up head to feet...then that is enough dead Iraqis to reach the Hubble Space telescopes orbit.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2315319]So tell me doc, do you automatically discount a study if it was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company??[/QUOTE]

    Are you seriously comparing George Soros to a pharmaceutical company? Wow, just wow!

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2315675]Are you seriously comparing George Soros to a pharmaceutical company? Wow, just wow![/QUOTE]

    Your kidding , right??? I mean , honestly , you dont see the comparison of how a pharmaceutical company might have some interest in skewing the analysis of a study to favor its drug so that their profits rise with George Soros wanting an analysis skewed in a certain way to ...prove his point??

    Wow , just wow !

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2315822]Your kidding , right??? I mean , honestly , you dont see the comparison of how a pharmaceutical company might have some interest in skewing the analysis of a study to favor its drug so that their profits rise with George Soros wanting an analysis skewed in a certain way to ...prove his point??

    Wow , just wow ![/QUOTE]So you agree that George Soros had an agenda. I agree.

    BTW, where did Neil Diamond bring up pharmaceuticals? Not the topic of this thread. How you may feel about pharmaceuticals has nothing to do with his point. Nice try at diversion, though.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2315849]So you agree that George Soros had an agenda. I agree.

    BTW, where did Neil Diamond bring up pharmaceuticals? Not the topic of this thread. How you may feel about pharmaceuticals has nothing to do with his point. Nice try at diversion, though.[/QUOTE]


    Of course Soros has an agenda. Everyone does. Even you.

    Your wrong, though. I am not going off topic. The argument presented in this article is that the study/conclusion was flawed [U]because[/U] Soros in part funded the study. To say that the analysis was bad because of his financial contribution is as valid as saying a medical study's conclusion is flawed simply because a pharmaceutical company sponsored the trial.

    Do you see the comparison of the arguments?? They are essentially the same argument used in a different context. You should try thinking before you respond. I know you are used to fluff responses kissing up to some other posters that you idolize but try being more than just a puppy dog cheerleader once in a while

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2315869]Of course Soros has an agenda. Everyone does. Even you.

    Your wrong, though. I am not going off topic. The argument presented in this article is that the study/conclusion was flawed [U]because[/U] Soros in part funded the study. To say that the analysis was bad because of his financial contribution is as valid as saying a medical study's conclusion is flawed simply because a pharmaceutical company sponsored the trial.

    Do you see the comparison of the arguments?? They are essentially the same argument used in a different context. You should try thinking before you respond. I know you are used to fluff responses kissing up to some other posters that you idolize but try being more than just a puppy dog cheerleader once in a while[/QUOTE]Someone needs to lighten up.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2315628]That really does make it much better. 151,000.

    If the average Iraqi is 5'5" and you stacked them all up head to feet...then that is enough dead Iraqis to reach the Hubble Space telescopes orbit.[/QUOTE]

    dude that doesn't matter

    the actual number of iraqis who died doesn't matter


    all that matters is that george soros is a scumbag

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2314854]Great drop Neil. Where have you been?[/QUOTE]

    Yo, they have me on call a few times a week. Oy.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2315822]Your kidding , right??? I mean , honestly , you dont see the comparison of how a pharmaceutical company might have some interest in skewing the analysis of a study to favor its drug so that their profits rise with George Soros wanting an analysis skewed in a certain way to ...prove his point??

    Wow , just wow ![/QUOTE]

    Kennyo, it was off by more than 80% compared to other estimates.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,804
    [QUOTE=Neil Diamond;2316938]Kennyo, it was off by more than 80% compared to other estimates.[/QUOTE]

    That isn't all that was off by 80% about this stupid f*cking god damn war.

    Shoot. Only 151,000 dead iraqizoids. That would only fill 15 15,000 gallon pools with their blood. Saddam would have definitely filled at least 20 by now. 151,000 reasons for some severely religious and misguided future Iraqi teenager to want to blow up my kids.


    Are we also going to be schooled on all the good Hitler did? Not everyone who went to a concentration camp died, right? Some lived to show off that b*tchin' tattoo they got, right?

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Neil Diamond;2316938]Kennyo, it was off by more than 80% compared to other estimates.[/QUOTE]

    True, and that is likely due to problems in the data gathering, statistical methods and/or analysis. Not because of who funded the study. There are lots of medical sudies out there that have shotty study designs but that is not necessarly b/c of who funds it. Hell MD Anderson in Texas keeps putting out studies that no one else can reproduce. Does it mean they are false?? No . Statistics and studies in general are very complicated. To attack a study simply b/c of who funds it is intellectually naive. This article is stupid not b/c it questions the study's conclusion but because its main attack is on who funded the study.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2314501]Nice find. I am sure the Times and its liberal brethren will be printing a correction on the same page and with as much copy space as the original........ sure.[/QUOTE]

    Some of you are lost in space. Does it really matter who is getting out the stats about the deaths in Iraq? Congratulations, you proved that a liberal has an agenda. Here is the bottom line-[B]LIKE IN VIETNAM, WE WERE LIED TO. AND GOOD SOLDIERS ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR THIS:[/B]

    READ-
    This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

    Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
    Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
    Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
    Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
    Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
    Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
    Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]
    Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

    By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-15-2008 at 01:54 PM.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2317613]Does it really matter who is getting out the stats about the deaths in Iraq?[/QUOTE]

    Yes. If there is reason to believe those stats are inaccurate or in some other way fraudulent and politically inspired.

    And "Deaths" is not really an accurate gauge IMO anyway. As it fails to mention WHO has killed those now dead. Even if the total number is accurate (which it apparently is not in any form), it would be quite relevant to point out WHO has killed what percentages thus far. Paint the whole story.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2317621][B]Yes. If there is reason to believe those stats are inaccurate or in some other way fraudulent and politically inspired.[/B]

    And "Deaths" is not really an accurate gauge IMO anyway. As it fails to mention WHO has killed those now dead. Even if the total number is accurate (which it apparently is not in any form), it would be quite relevant to point out WHO has killed what percentages thus far. Paint the whole story.[/QUOTE]

    Likewise, im [I]sure [/I]you question the lower statistics reported by those on the right who were pushing for this war:rolleyes:

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2317703]Likewise, im [I]sure [/I]you question the lower statistics reported by those on the right who were pushing for this war:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Of course I do. Did you have some you wanted to share, so I could make you happy and express doubt?

    But again, simply tallying "Deaths" doesn't tell us much, or mean much, beyond the basic fact of how many have died. It alone is hardly a basis for or against anything, without context, i.e. who killed who.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2317754]Of course I do. Did you have some you wanted to share, so I could make you happy and express doubt?

    [B]But again, simply tallying "Deaths" doesn't tell us much, or mean much, beyond the basic fact of how many have died. It alone is hardly a basis for or against anything, without context, i.e. who killed who[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Ok suppose it is found (and probably likely) that it is Iraqis killing Iraqis. That is Sunni vs Shiite. How does that make our struggle there any better than if it was Americans killing Iraqis (probably contributing to much fewer Iraqi casualties)?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us