OT: 100,000 Excess Deaths in Iraq Since Invasion John Hopki

[Fred Bloggs]

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

Note this, from the report: "The researchers felt the excessive violence from
combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information
from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been
expected had the invasion not occurred."

So take note that the 100k is __excluding__ Falluja.

Jon

 

[Winfield Hill]

Steve Sands wrote...

Keep digging dipshit. Guess who's climbing in the polls as
Kerry and his press tells more lies on missing explosives?

A Minnesota television crew embedded with U.S. 101st Airborne
Division in Iraq recorded the video at the al-Qaqaa munitions
base in April 18, 2003, nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Rebroadcast by ABC News, the footage shows troops inspecting what
appear to be the now-missing explosives, still in barrels stamped
with International Atomic Energy Agency markings.

In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, former U.S.
weapons inspector David Kay said the video appears to be authentic.

"The photographs are consistent with what I know of al-Qaqaa," Kay
told the paper. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't
use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an IAEA seal."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1099045805087_100

There is a lot more still to come behind this story, interviews
with the people who took the video, tracking of their path 3-miles
deep into the compound, GPS coordinates checked out, etc., etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:46:24 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
<rich@example.net> wrote:

I'm not worrying about any of that crap - I'm voting Badnarik.
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres

Cheers!
Rich

www.votepair.com


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Steve Sands wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html


Stop the presses.

Not just enemy combatants die in war?

What's next? Popcorn tastes better with butter on it?

Another ten years and that number might just may match those that died
under Saddam!

It is great to replace one badie with another one.
This way the hate and anger stays focused.
Otherwise they could rip Saddams head off and
start to forget.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

Steve Sands wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths,
mostly among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html



Stop the presses.

Not just enemy combatants die in war?
What's next? Popcorn tastes better with butter on it?

Another ten years and that number might just may match those that died
under Saddam!


It is great to replace one badie with another one.
This way the hate and anger stays focused.
Otherwise they could rip Saddams head off and
start to forget.

Now, instead of hating Saddam, they can hate Americans.
And the good news is that the Americans are running around Iraq where they can
be killed in revenge (unlike Saddam).

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:21 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:46:24 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:


I'm not worrying about any of that crap - I'm voting Badnarik.
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres

Cheers!
Rich

www.votepair.com

Excellent! Guerilla Votefare! >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:21 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:46:24 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:


I'm not worrying about any of that crap - I'm voting Badnarik.
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres

Cheers!
Rich

www.votepair.com

Thanks! Turns out that California is already Badnarik-safe. It turns out,
according to their "how it works" page, a Badnarik vote counts as a
"strategic vote". ;-)

Y'know, it kinda sends chills up my spine, of the _good_ kind, to see
that people around the country are getting together at the grass roots
to come up with strategies to stop Bush while minimizing collateral
damage.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rolavine]

Hopkins Reports
From: Jonathan Kirwan jkirwan@easystreet.com
Date: 10/29/04 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <h6t4o097agprlitv8rd85uermiop2qh8qk@4ax.com

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

Note this, from the report: "The researchers felt the excessive violence
from
combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding
information
from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have
been
expected had the invasion not occurred."

So take note that the 100k is __excluding__ Falluja.

I did some research on this last summer and came up with about 70,000 dead

Iraqis. 30K soldiers, 10K civilians during the invasion proper, and 32500
killed by each other when there were no cops to stop them, and about 2500 dead
insurgents.

Jon

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Steve Sands wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html


Another ten years and that number might just may match those that died
under Saddam!

If the US is competing with Saddam then we should just release him from
prison and give the country back. You're obviously too dumb to see it-
but there is a clear correlation between the pervasive killing of
innocent civilians and the popular support for insurgency activity. That
is just an immediate practicality of the statistic. Add in the fact that
the invasion is a violation of international and US law, and you have
much more serious issues. You must be thinking the average Iraqi is as
stupid as you are.

Keep digging dipshit. Guess who's climbing in the polls as Kerry and
his press tells more lies on missing explosives?

The missing explosives were just those requiring inventory reports by UN
resolution and under IAEA jurisdiction. This revelation has now brought
the blatant incompetence of the Bush Administration to the forefront ,
and that is that possibly millions of tons of munitions have been
looted. The DoD admitted that they gave up securing these depots because
they were impossibly low on manpower and equipment. There HAD to be
reports to SECDEF on this serious problem and they were apparently
ignored. The rank amateur Rumsfeld did not think any of it would amount
to anything. But look at the situation there today- it most certainly
has amounted to something very big- THE MOST DISGRACEFUL DEFEAT IN US
HISTORY.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html


They even admit their study has holes
in it that you could drive an M1A1 Abrahms tank thru.

What in particular? Can you cite the "holes"- and what should they have
done to fix it?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:09:03 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Jonathan Kirwan jkirwan@easystreet.com Date: 10/29/04 11:36 AM
So take note that the 100k is __excluding__ Falluja.

I did some research on this last summer and came up with about 70,000 dead
Iraqis. 30K soldiers, 10K civilians during the invasion proper, and 32500
killed by each other when there were no cops to stop them, and about 2500
dead insurgents.

10 more missiles into Fallujah tonight, but the casualty reports aren't in

yet.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:29:17 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Steve Sands wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...

Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html


Another ten years and that number might just may match those that died
under Saddam!

If the US is competing with Saddam then we should just release him from
prison and give the country back. You're obviously too dumb to see it-

Fred, it's not Steve Sands who's being the dummy here. It's clear that
he was using sarcasm to make the point that the US is catching up to
SH in wanton killing.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4183D79D.8010307@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41830300.8060305@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:


Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41825714.4050306@nospam.com>...



Study results as reported in Lancet by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health scientifically estimates 100,000 excess deaths, mostly
among women and children, in Iraq due to US invasion:

http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html


They even admit their study has holes
in it that you could drive an M1A1 Abrahms tank thru.

What in particular? Can you cite the "holes"- and what should they have
done to fix it?


For starters they are basing their "results" on 142 deaths:

The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142
deaths following the invasion.

What does the number of deaths recorded by the study have to do with the
estimate of increased death rate when the sampling was representative
and random:


Then, fredfraud, you don't know shit about statistics and I'm wasting
my breath talking to you.

Actually I am quite good at picking up on their techniques. Why don't
you tell where the John Hopkins people went wrong so that I can expose them.

I will replace the summary of the method again:

"The researchers conducted their survey in September 2004. They randomly
selected 33 neighborhoods of 30 homes from across Iraq and interviewed
the residents about the number and ages of the people living in each
home. Over 7,800 Iraqis were included. Residents were questioned about
the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household since
January 2002. Information was also collected about the causes and
circumstances of each death. When possible, the deaths were verified
with a death certificate or other documentation."

It does not make any sense to attack the magnitude of collected data
from which a nationwide estimate is made- the confidence in the final
estimate is a function *only* of the representation in the sample. You
don't think the sample was representative? And if not, why not? Please
explain the proper way to estimate sample size based on projected
statistic and margin of error.

The various reviewers of the Lancet report have said that this survey
used standard and accepted social study survey techniques. There has
been no rebuttal from anyone knowledgeable about these techniques. The
only other study group attempting to keep track of the count has agreed
that the figures are credible. It is also being reported that CENTCOM
has been keeping a bodycount of civilian deaths, classifies this number,
and refuses to report it. Now why would that be? Yet another report from
an Iraqi Health Ministry scientist states that they were ordered to stop
record keeping of the Iraq civilian deaths. Now why would that be?

This "Study" is left-wing propagandist bullshit designed to get the
unbalanced left radicals like you energized. Well, go for it! You guys
are running out of scams, diversions, lies and innuendos. 3 days to
doomsday, fredfraud!

Nope- you are totally wrong about that. Your response is an example of
what we have ALL seen from the Bush administration time and time again,
when presented with hard core scientific and factual evidence, you
*dismiss* it on grounds that it has political purpose and no other
value. Well- it does have a political *effect* and it does have real
value. Are you so stupid that you think the study was mere accident? It
had become obvious that the civilian casualty was FAR FAR higher than
the lies of the CENTCOM news releases would lead people to believe, and
the scale of tragedy taking place in Iraq was something that needed to
be scientifically verified and publicized. This has now been done and by
an organization with unimpeachable experience, capability, and
credentials- they are much more qualified than CENTCOM for example. The
results have stunned everyone- the scale of human tragedy in Iraq is
HORRIFIC- and it is being caused by a reckless if not criminal
application of excess force by the US. What is more, CENTCOM has
actively suppressed the publication of this data, the Bush
administration has been deceiving the American public about their
murderous activities in Iraq- it is very difficult to justify the claim
you are installing freedom and democracy by committing mass murders of
civilians, women, and children all throughout Iraq!

Published on Sunday, October 31, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
Pentagon Suppresses Details of Civilian Casualties, Says Expert
by Raymond Whitaker


The Pentagon is collecting figures on local casualties in Iraq, contrary
to its public claims, but the results are classified, according to one
of the authors of an independent study which reported last week that the
war has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.



Mr Powell decided to keep the figures secret because of the controversy
over body counts in Vietnam, but I think democracies need this information.

Prof. Richard Garfield
"Despite the claim of the head of US Central Command at the time,
General Tommy Franks, that 'We don't do body counts', the US military
does collect casualty figures in Iraq," said Professor Richard Garfield,
an expert on the effects of conflict on civilians. "But since 1991, when
Colin Powell was head of the joint chiefs of staff, the figures have
been kept secret."

Professor Garfield, who lectures at Columbia University in New York and
the London School of Hygiene and Public Health, believes the Pentagon's
stance has confused its response to the latest study. "The military is
saying: 'We don't believe it, but because we don't collect figures, we
can't comment," he said.

"Mr Powell decided to keep the figures secret because of the controversy
over body counts in Vietnam, but I think democracies need this information."

The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war, published
last week in The Lancet, showed a higher level of casualties than
previous estimates. Iraqbodycount.net, a website which collects accounts
of Iraqi civilian deaths reported by two separate media sources, said
yesterday the toll was between 14,181 and 16,312, but admits that the
spreading violence in Iraq, which has made it all but impossible for
journalists to move around safely, has undermined its method. That did
not prevent the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, from using its figures to
cast doubt on the academic survey.

The Government would examine the results "with very great care", Mr
Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today program last week. "It is an estimate
based on very different methodology from standard methodology for
assessing casualties, namely on the number of people reported to have
been killed at the time or around the time." Previously the Government
has dismissed the findings of the Iraqbodycount website.

The study by US and Iraqi researchers, led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health in Baltimore, surveyed 1,000 households in 33
randomly chosen areas in Iraq. It found that the risk of violent death
was 58 times higher in the period since the invasion, and that most of
the victims were women and children.

"Making conservative assumptions, about 100,000 excess deaths have
happened ... Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air
strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths," said
Les Roberts of the Baltimore institution. The researchers excluded
Fallujah, the most violent area of Iraq, from their results, which would
have made the toll higher. But the finding that air strikes caused the
highest casualties casts doubt on US claims that air attacks allow
pinpoint precision.

Iraq's interim government has also suppressed casualty figures. Dr
Nagham Mohsen, an official at the Iraqi Health Ministry, was compiling
data from hospital records last year. In December she was ordered by a
superior to stop. The Health Minister denied that the order was inspired
by the Coalition Provisional Authority.