Now no-one believes the Lancet

The Lancet has come up with some controversial figures regarding the number of violent deaths in Iraq - and after years of relying on it for out-of-context health-scare stories, the media and general public suddenly do not believe it.

Indeed, it seems the general public knows better than the British medical journal. Everyone has become an armchair statistician. Journalists, pundits, Joe Blog... they all know more about stastics and the situation in Iraq than a team of scientists who have now produced their second report into violent deaths in this war-zone.

This is the most recommended moderated comment on the BBC website:

Using the figure of 650,000 I have worked out (V V roughly) that no less than 515 people have been killed every day over the last 42 months. That is day in and day out. I cannot begin to believe such a figure. Certainly the killing that has ocurred has been absolutley awful but bandying nonsense figures about helps no one and certainly discredits "The Lancet".
John, Oban

OK John from Oban - what figure can you believe? The ones spawned from counting death reports in the media? Official government figures, if there are any? Or just cut to the chase. Tell us how many people you think have been killed by the conflict, and we'll find a source that matches up with that. Is that what you want? The world to slot into agreement with your tiny brain?

John from Oban cannot imagine 500 people a day dead from violence because, at that rate, Oban's entire population would be slain in just over three weeks. So it isn't true.

Even the BBC offers a totally flawed "this can't be so" analysis. It uses an assumption that existing UN figures are correct, to debunk, in a roundabout way, the proposed figures from the Lancet.

BBC Paul Reynolds: Baghdad is not the whole country of course, but AP reported the United Nations as saying that in July and August, 6,599 people were killed across the country, of which 5,106 were in Baghdad.

This suggests that Baghdad has by far the highest number of actual and percentage dead.

So, if the current rate in Baghdad is about 86 and the countrywide figure should be about 500 according to the Lancet report, where are the "missing" dead?"

This is like debunking Copernicus with:

"The Earth is at the centre of the universe. Copernicus has a different view. Therefore... Copernicus is wrong. And he's a dangerous liar, let's put him under house arrest before he ruins everything."

The Lancet has done a difficult and unpopular job. Sure they may wish they had a larger sample, or a more diverse sample, or a smaller, more accurate, sample, or whatever sort of sample it is statisticians dream of. But the fact is, they have a sample, they have come up with a result, they have published it and put their scientific reputations behind it. This is science. You can disagree with it but you can only discredit it if you have a better way. And the armchair statisticians have nothing, except angry scared voices.

Sound familiar?

Will the editors of the Lancert now be burned as witches?

They'd better be careful. RIP David Kelly - an unpopular scientific view can get you in a whole lot of trouble in the third world war.