BeardedBruse:

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of "main street bias" – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that "there was no main street bias" and later amended their reply to "no evidence of a main street bias".

The Lancet authors described their methodology, and refuted the "main street bias" accusation (one made without any factual basis). If Professor Spagat thinks there was indeed "main street bias", he should publish a (peer-reviewed) paper that demonstrates this. Not only that, but as I pointed out in a prior incarnation of this "debate", while Prof. Spagat suggests that there was such a bias, and while he claims that such a bias would over-report deaths, he provides no facts for either assertion.

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, ...

Where? But FWIW, their numbers didn't come from "mortality figures suggested by other organisations".

an inaccurate graph, ...

Where? And?!?!?

... the use of the word "casualties" to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, ...

Assuming arguendo this is true, how does this change their results?

... and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen....

Ummmm, science is reporting what you find, not what you think you should have found.

... Using the "three-to-one rule" – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

And Prof. Spagat's evidence for this "rule"?

"The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions," contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed....

No. They discuss the other estimates. Their numbers are based on their data and their methodology.

... "They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated."...

Prof. Spagat's evidence for this is _________?!?!?

... The paper had "no scientific standing"....

.... says Prof. Spagat. SFW? If Prof. Spagat has better data and better numbers, ho ought to publish them.

... Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? "No."

Does he have any evidence for fraud?!?!? No. "I'm not saying you're a communist, but....."

Cheers,