Full Version: Lancet study refuted
CruisingRam, you're still wrong about what "peer reviewed" means in the context of scientific journals. It's a term of art, and it refers to the pre-publication review of an article by other experts in the field (called "referees"). The referees submit comments, and make a recommendation on whether to publish the paper. The author gets to see the comments (though often not the name of the referee), and will often make changes to the article based on those comments. This all happens before publication. That's how peer-reviewed journals work.
It's got nothing to do with copy-editing. That's a completely separate process. If you'd read the link in my last article, you'd know that.
Yes, in a broader sense, peer review continues after an article is published. But that's just the nature of science. You're the one who keeps flinging the phrase "peer reviewed journal" around, and you clearly don't know what it means. The funniest part is, you're insisting that the rest of us are ignorant!
It's got nothing to do with copy-editing. That's a completely separate process. If you'd read the link in my last article, you'd know that.
Yes, in a broader sense, peer review continues after an article is published. But that's just the nature of science. You're the one who keeps flinging the phrase "peer reviewed journal" around, and you clearly don't know what it means. The funniest part is, you're insisting that the rest of us are ignorant!
From an earlier link by CR.
Since death certificates are official records of death how could so many of them be issued but only 10% of them be acknowledged by the government?
QUOTE
Death Certificates
Of the 1849 households that completed the survey there were reports of 629 deaths during the study period from January 1, 2002 through June 2006.[2]
The Lancet study claims that, "Survey teams asked for death certificates in 545 (87%) reported deaths and these were present in 501 cases. The pattern of deaths in households without death certificates was no different from those with certificates."[2]
So, 92% of those asked for death certificates produced them.
In an interview in April 2007 Lancet study author Les Roberts reported that, "90 percent of the people we interviewed had death certificates. We're quite sure they didn't make these deaths up."[56]
The Iraq Body Count project questioned the Lancet study's death certificate findings saying the Lancet study authors "would imply that officials in Iraq have issued approximately 550,000 death certificates for violent deaths (92% of 601,000). Yet in June 2006, the total figure of post-war violent deaths known to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH), combined with the Baghdad morgue, was approximately 50,000.
Of the 1849 households that completed the survey there were reports of 629 deaths during the study period from January 1, 2002 through June 2006.[2]
The Lancet study claims that, "Survey teams asked for death certificates in 545 (87%) reported deaths and these were present in 501 cases. The pattern of deaths in households without death certificates was no different from those with certificates."[2]
So, 92% of those asked for death certificates produced them.
In an interview in April 2007 Lancet study author Les Roberts reported that, "90 percent of the people we interviewed had death certificates. We're quite sure they didn't make these deaths up."[56]
The Iraq Body Count project questioned the Lancet study's death certificate findings saying the Lancet study authors "would imply that officials in Iraq have issued approximately 550,000 death certificates for violent deaths (92% of 601,000). Yet in June 2006, the total figure of post-war violent deaths known to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH), combined with the Baghdad morgue, was approximately 50,000.
Since death certificates are official records of death how could so many of them be issued but only 10% of them be acknowledged by the government?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jan 11 2008, 09:20 PM) 
FYI, PHD candidates, and non-established, never before published authors DO try to get some non-science nonsense, by creatively stringing together science hoaxes, being smart dweeby science types that they sometimes are 
- so ya, someone does edit purely for readability, as in grammar and structure, and do a non-biased check on whether the science is valid NOT IF IT is right or wrong by opinion, but that they followed scientific guidelines.
None of that is peer review. Peer review happens as soon as the subscribers read them- the main subscriber's being thier "peers" literally. Then, if the study is truly "fatally flawed" - the scientists that find those fatal flaws, are then obligated to prove those points in a counter-publication, or rebuttal publication. Op-ed pieces and public speeches don't count as "publication"- and there is another process to publish in that same journal a rebuttal.
- so ya, someone does edit purely for readability, as in grammar and structure, and do a non-biased check on whether the science is valid NOT IF IT is right or wrong by opinion, but that they followed scientific guidelines. None of that is peer review. Peer review happens as soon as the subscribers read them- the main subscriber's being thier "peers" literally. Then, if the study is truly "fatally flawed" - the scientists that find those fatal flaws, are then obligated to prove those points in a counter-publication, or rebuttal publication. Op-ed pieces and public speeches don't count as "publication"- and there is another process to publish in that same journal a rebuttal.
You couldn't be more wrong. No self-respecting scientific journal would ever publish a paper or a study without an extensive review by other experts in the field. That is the peer review process and it happens before publication. When a scientific journal chooses to publish something, they place their own reputation and credibility on the line along with that of the author. Now there may be disagreements with conclusions contained in the paper among experts, but the science and methodology behind the paper had better be bullet-proof or that paper will never see the light of day. Not in any true scientific journal anyway. It might make it into an Algore or Michael Moore movie though.
Here is an example from one such journal about their peer review process......
QUOTE
Because of the extensive experience of the editorial team,
the peer review process has functioned very efficiently. Over
400 reviewers in the field of thermophysics and heat transfer
have volunteered their services to ensure the success of JTHT.
Prospective authors may be interested in knowing that the
average time between the receipt of a manuscript and the
decision to revise it was 2.2 months for the articles appearing in the October, 1987, issue.
the peer review process has functioned very efficiently. Over
400 reviewers in the field of thermophysics and heat transfer
have volunteered their services to ensure the success of JTHT.
Prospective authors may be interested in knowing that the
average time between the receipt of a manuscript and the
decision to revise it was 2.2 months for the articles appearing in the October, 1987, issue.
2.2 months. They aren't just looking for typos in that time period.
Aquilla
Here is another survey supporting the validity of the second Lancet published John Hopkins study of excess deaths due to our invasion of Iraq.
Whether the real figure is 200,000 or more than 1,000,000 the criminal consequences of this aggression based on lies is clear. This is even more evident when you consider the 1 in 5 Iraqis that has been internally displaced or driven into exile.
QUOTE
LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.
................................................................................
.......................................................
The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.
................................................................................
.......................................................
The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.
Whether the real figure is 200,000 or more than 1,000,000 the criminal consequences of this aggression based on lies is clear. This is even more evident when you consider the 1 in 5 Iraqis that has been internally displaced or driven into exile.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.