TIA,

you can't be serious, can you? There is one bunch of scientists, the good guys. They have political motives (like all humans including scientists), but with them science has transcended our perspectives. Therefore, the results are fine. There is another bunch, the bad guys, who are motivated more by politics than by science. True, they use arguments from research methods and not from politics, but with them science does not transcend their perspectives and therefore mentioning political motivation is a valid argument against a methodological critique.

That's complete rubbish. Scientists have motives and perspectives but a discussion about methods has to remain free of such arguments. And if one wants to argue about motives, it has to go both ways and not just one way.

In a more general sense (I mean many more Mudcatters than just you), the debaters here too often use science and scientific results in a way a drunk uses a lantern: they do not seek light, only support (I have adapted a quote here). I hate that approach. I think the Iraq war was wrong and Bush's politics disastrous but from that does not follow that I have to accept the highest published number of casualties as true. The IBC scientists are outspokenly against the war and still do not buy the Lancet results.

The Lancet study has problems and I do not at all care (nor do I know) if those who have pointed out the problems are Bushists, war mongers, conservatives or whatever. A debate about methods can only suffer from a chase for motives.

It is still true that the same methods are widely used, and unchallenged, in other studies. (TIA)

TIA,

if you really have read and understood the discussion, you should know that this argument is completely irrelevant to the main critique. The main critique was not the use of that method but a very specific point (biases in data collection inflating the estimate) re that particular study. It is not a critique that can be applied to the other studies. Therefore, the argument that other studies with that method have not been challenged, is irrelevant, because the other studies had not the (potential) sources of bias this study has.

as of many months later, the objections remain on editorial pages, blogs, emails, letters, interviews and "personal communications". There is scant (if any?) peer-reviewed criticism (TIA)

TIA,

I don't know enough about other parts of science to be completely sure, but in those parts I know it is impossible to publish a peer-reviewed critique in such a short time. A lack of peer-reviewed critique at this moment in time means nothing at all and is not worth being mentioned.

It is a long post, I know, but in addressing you I address a more general tendency I see in these discussions. One can predict from knowing the political leanings which numbers a participant finds convincing or not. I dislike that the "peace mongers" will always jump to the highest available estimate irrespective of potential problems. I dislike as well when I see the "war mongers" quoting the ICB estimate and "forget" to add the two words "at least".

The only reliable estimate we have at this time is the ICB count which is a really good estimate of the lowest possible number of deaths. The real numbers must be higher as the ICB people never fail to point out. Factor 2 or 3 higher is their guesstimate if they are pressed, but nowhere near to factor ten.

The Lancet study has been shown to have been biased in a way that can have inflated the final estimate. There is no way to know how much (or even: if at all) that bias has inflated the result. So it's time to move on and forget these results. They may be true, slightly inflated or grossly inflated. Since we don't know we have to wait for other studies with more reliable data. Well, perhaps their lowest number may be used as an upper bound estimate in the way of "surely less than...".

Wolfgang