It wasn't necessary for the author of the article I gave a link to to specifically address all of the points that the people who claim to have discredited the Lancet study make in order to discredit their arguments.

All he needed to do, and he succeeded in doing it to my satisfaction, is to provide enough material to show why the various studies that have been done are not in substantial disagreement with one another.

Another thing I got from it is that the US government (including GW Bush) embrace the 30,000 figure, and the authors of the study that number came from say that their numbers are not intended to reflect the total number of civilians killed, and that thousands of civilian deaths are not included in their study.

Also that the Lancet study, as published, did not include the area around Fallujah, which, had it been included, would have more than doubled the number of civilian deaths. Also the fact that the Lancet report didn't include the many people who have simply gone missing, but for whom the families do not have any official word of their death.

It's not what he wrote about the Lancet study alone that has changed my way of seeing it. It's how he was able to put the Lancet study into the larger context of, A. all of the studies that have been done so far, and B. what the authors of the various studies have to say about what their studies are intended to accomplish, and what they believe the results of their studies show.

It should be noted, also, that the authors of the Lancet study consider 100,000 to be a conservative estimate of the number of civilian deaths in Iraq during the first 18 months of the US led invasion and occupation there.