OT Is anyone really surprised?

Quoted message said:

"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.

Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"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 nearly $100,000
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 Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed
to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic
terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros
whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open
society democrat (small d).

But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy
ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course
he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things
he cannot himself build.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

"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.

Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.
We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the
rest of them are.
They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous.
That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the
bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country,
but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give
them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find
irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above.
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a
compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used
state-of-the-art methodology.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to
be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists
almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name
is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat
(small d).

"Soros whose real name is Schwartz"
Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you
think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness
are worth mentioning.

Wikipedia says:
"The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from
Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews."

George was, at the time, six years old. Is Schwartz
still his real name? My grandfather was from Russia
and the name got changed when he emigrated. Is my
real name in Cyrillic? That would explain a few things.

BTW, radio personality Michael Savage's real name is
Michael Weiner (no relation). Do you suppose he changed
it because of the Fascist threat? (Maybe the Liberal-Fascist
threat?) Or because his target audience thinks that's
a funny commie name?

Ben
p.s. So if 150,000 people died in Iraq instead of 600,000,
that makes it a success, right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a
compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used
state-of-the-art methodology.

I didn't mean to imply that a "compromise" of numbers would be correct. My
point was that it's entirely normal, even desirable, that someone who's
"against" something challenges the methodology of a study. I shouldn't have
added anything else to cloud that.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a
compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used
state-of-the-art methodology.

Quoted message said:

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
them.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

"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.

Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that
funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco
industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED
with
that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies
that showed otherwise.

So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even
neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study
challenging the previously-claimed death figures?

I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I
will
suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people
to
question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method
deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon.

So what exactly was your point again?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.
We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the
rest of them are.
They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous.
That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the
bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country,
but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give
them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find
irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above.
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"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 nearly $100,000
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"

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT
in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned
and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study.
Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the
purposes of public education.

2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.

3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead
author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess
deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000.
The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same
period of (drumroll) 100,000.

Bill C said:

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it.

One might extend this a bit by noting that scientific studies are
independent of the reporting on scientific studies. If a biased media
outlet quotes a study in support of their pet positions, it doesn't
necessarily mean that the cited study supports their conclusions.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some
of us to learn.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Soros whose real name is Schwartz"
Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you
think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness
are worth mentioning.

I find jackasses such as yourself to be entirely laughable. My grandfather
was Jewish.

Quoted message said:

Wikipedia says:
"The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from
Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews."

As my grandfather worked his way across the country from his POE to Cripple
Creek he changed his name a dozen times to prevent anyone from ever finding
out he was Jewish. Why do you suppose that was? After all, it was 1899 and
everyone was so pro-Jew.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding.

I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Soros
needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study. But
that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise.

Quoted message said:

2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.

Here's a clue you nitwit - such a "study" that proclaims "excess deaths" is
a complete and utter fraud. Entire tribes were being wiped out in secret by
Hussein's regime and lousy left wing cowards such as yourself would gladly
claim otherwise despite huge projects such as the swap draining and
testimoney from the swamp arabs that they were being murdered en masse.

Tell me you spineless coward - what were the excess deaths from the American
Revolution - or the Indian Wars? You seem to think that freedom isn't worth
"excess deaths" so perhaps you ought to return to China and live out your
life of luxury there.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
causes since the invasion in 2003.

It only covers the first three years of the war, by the way, i.e. it goes through
early '06.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Soros whose real name is Schwartz"
Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you
think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness
are worth mentioning.

I find jackasses such as yourself to be entirely laughable. My grandfather
was Jewish.

Are you sure he didn't work at a company that invented Judaism?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wikipedia says:
"The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from
Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews."

As my grandfather worked his way across the country from his POE to Cripple
Creek he changed his name a dozen times to prevent anyone from ever finding
out he was Jewish. Why do you suppose that was? After all, it was 1899 and
everyone was so pro-Jew.

And your point is... what???????

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding.

I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Soros
needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study. But
that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise.

You can suggest that but not only is there no evidence of this, the
head of the MIT program that commissioned the study already denied
this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/flypaper_for_innumerates_natio.php#comment-707686

Quoted message said:

Here's a clue you nitwit - [...] Tell me you spineless coward -

Oh, Tom, there you go again.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some
of us to learn.

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
some
of us to learn.

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
> issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
some
of us to learn.

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?

Well, it seems pretty straight forward to think that, for those who clamored for
the war, a smaller number of casualties is easier to defend than a big one. Of
course, some people who clamored for the war aren't all that concerned with any
number.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
> issues surrounding this issue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
some
of us to learn.

Quoted message said:

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?

Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the
discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or
methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological
issues discussed.