Bullshit Lancet Suvey Re: "Excess Deaths" in Iraq Rebuked by Professional Panel for Nondisclosure of Methods

Finally debunked. Wow, that Lightworker really has ushered in a new era of sound science.

In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said this morning that the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work.

In an eight-month investigation, Gilbert Burnham, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, "repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on civilian deaths in Iraq," AAPOR said in a statement.

The association said it had focused on Burnham's study, published in the October 2006 issue of the British medical journal Lancet, reporting an estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. A 2004 report, in which Burnham also participated, estimated approximately 98,000 excess deaths to that point.

In its news release on the 2006 study, the Lancet said, "The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations."

AAPOR's standards committee chair, Mary E. Losch, said the association, acting on a member's complaint, had formally requested from Burnham "basic information about his survey, including, for example, the wording of questions he used, instructions and explanations that were provided to respondents, and a summary of the outcomes for all households selected as potential participants in the survey."

Losch said Burnham gave some partial answers but "explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research."

In related news, I'm penning a study for the Lancet stating that there have been ninety-six bazillion "excess tears" in America due to The One's broken promises.

Peer Reviewed? Um, how did this survey get published in the first place without these sorts of basic disclosures? How can one peer review something without fundamental information about data collected and methods?

Gee, it's almost as the scientensia put politics ahead of actual science.

posted by Ace at 01:04 PM

| Access Comments