<< EXCELLENT VISUALS ~ MAIN ~ CORRECTION #2 >>

CORRECTION #3

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Alan Ramsey a few months ago:

On October 29 - just four days before polling in the US election - The Lancet published, on the internet, the result of a study carried out by a research team from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in association with researchers at Baghdad’s Al-Mustansiriya University. The study was based on a door-to-door survey in September of 8000 people in 33 randomly selected locations across Iraq and it concluded that a minimum 98,000 civilians had died in the violence, and its aftermath, since the US-led invasion 18 months earlier, in March 2003 ...

Here in John Howard’s Australia, as in official Washington, the study cut no ice whatever. Our newspapers barely mentioned it.

But in a circumstance last Saturday where he might have mentioned the Lancet report himself, Ramsey avoided an overall Iraq estimate and cited lower numbers specific to Baghdad:

Civilian casualties of war. Bali in October three years ago (202 deaths). Madrid in March last year (191 deaths). London two nights ago (at least 52 deaths). Baghdad for the past 27 months (18,000 to 40,000 deaths minimum).

That might be as close as we ever get to a Lancet correction from grouchy Al.

Posted by Tim B. on 07/14/2005 at 11:49 AM

  1. The Lancet “100,000” claim is like an own goal at this point. Even the most rabid anti-war folks (the intellecutally honest ones anyway) wont touch it in debate. That wasn’t the case for the fist few months after it was published.

    Posted by BEAM on 2005 07 14 at 10:42 PM • permalink

  2. Even the innumerate finally learn to duck after being battered with the truth over and over.  Advantage, bloggers.

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 07 14 at 11:58 PM • permalink

  3. So, has Tim Lambert removed his foot from his mouth yet?

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 15 at 12:47 AM • permalink

  4. Civilian casualties of war. Bali in October three years ago (202 deaths). Madrid in March last year (191 deaths). London two nights ago (at least 52 deaths). Baghdad for the past 27 months (18,000 to 40,000 deaths minimum).

    Where does that figure come from? The number doesn’t sound that familiar, and I’m not aware of a study studying only Baghdad.

    Posted by Andjam on 2005 07 15 at 10:02 PM • permalink

    5. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.