Inconvenient questions evaded

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 01:00 pm

University of London statistician Professor Michael Spagat takes aim at The Lancet’s absurd Iraq death count:

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”.

Ouch. And there’s more:

Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

Posted by Tim B. on 03/05/2007 at 07:16 AM
(29) Comments • Permalink