For someone who holds blogs in contempt, Michael Fumento sure spends a lot of time posting comments to blogs. Here he is again: (Hat tip: John Fleck, now the third site on a Google search for "Michael Fumento")
My writing on the Lancet article has been Fleck's obsession for over a week, and everything he says is wrong including this latest posting. First, simple subtraction tells you in 19 percent of the households death certificates were NOT used. But that's not the equivalent of 19 percent of the deaths. If a household said a bomb killed five family members, that's worth five death certificates. For all we know, half the deaths reported came from recall. Second, apparently Lambert has never seen a death certificate and thinks coroners or medical examiners are psychics. A death certificate will indicate death by violence, but it won't say something like "500 lb. JDAM dropped by U.S. F-18." Every day we see pictures of Iraqis blown up by Iraqis and other Arabs. Yes, the people were blown up but no we didn't do it and the death certificate isn't going to say one way or another. Finally, he ignores evidence outside of the paper that I presented, including two anti-war groups that said the Lancet figures were far too high and a certain individual who pegged them too high by 85,000. His name? Osama bin Laden.
Note that after his apparent flip-flop on the question of whether the study reported an estimate excluding Falluja, Fumento is silent on that question. Anyway, let me address the points that Fumento does raise. First, hardly any households had multiple deaths, so his notion that half the deaths were not confirmed is wrong. Second, yes, the death certificate will just say that the cause of the death was an explosion without saying who was responsible. For that we must rely on the word of the family. But the person is still dead as a result of the invasion, no matter who did the killing. Third, the numbers from groups like Iraq Body Count are measuring something different from the Lancet survey--the number of confirmed civilian deaths directly caused by the war. The IBC number is certainly an underestimate since not all deaths will be reported. Not does it count indirect effects like increase in disease because of breakdowns in medical infrastructure. The IBC does not say that the Lancet estimate is too high:
Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others.
Fumento, of course, claims otherwise.
It never ceases to amaze me how dogmatic folks like Fumento will rely on otherwise unreliable sources when those sources are saying what they want to hear. I mean, in what other context can you imagine anyone citing Osama as a reliable source for what's happening inside of Iraq? If Osama said that Iraqis were uniting against the American interlopers, would Fumento also quote that as a reliable piece of information?
[The canonical example of this for me are the folks who tell me Nazis must have been socialists bc their party had "Socialist" in the name... to which I inevitably reply that Mao's China had "Republic" in the name, does they believe that this made it a republic? But Im not in the habit of taking totalitarians at their word. I could say the same thing about religious fanatics, I suppose.]
Fumento's fuming is just so much bombast from an ego apparently bigger than Ben Hur, driven by (demonstrably) very little talent and no shame or journalistic ethics.
He even seems incapable of distinguishing John Fleck from Tim Lambert, let alone getting any more demanding analysis right.
Don't forget though (he won't let you) how widely broadcast are his writings! Indeed, there is at least a message in that fact.
There sure is, Winston. Actually we should consider the possibility that Mr. Fumento has been attempting to embody an aphorism here. The one about how a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots laced up.
"For all we know, half the deaths came form recall.."
That is called the 'Argument from Ignorance' and it is not helpful.
It would be intersting to run this survey in violent US ghettos, process results by the same methodology and compare the outcomes with the very good stats available.
I was put off (more than usual) by the self-righteousness of
the
post in your first link.
I wrote a reply, but hesitated to post it out of a craven reluctance to post in a mildly hostile environment. It's academic now, since the moderator has taken offense at being called "inconsequential" by Carl Jarrett, deleted Jarrett's post, and closed comments. Sheesh -- if Tim were as thin-skinned, this blog would be a dull spot. Never one to waste a byte, I'll post what I wrote here:
Indeed.
And if what Mr. Fumento says is false -- and not only false, but egregiously and persistently and inexcusably false -- he ought to be promptly fired. At the very least, an apology ought to be given to the researchers who did a good and honest job of shedding light on an important subject under difficult circumstances. But I won't hold my breath until TCS fires Fumento or apologizes to Roberts et al.
There has been a great deal of self-impressed commentary on this subject by supporters of the war, all of whom seem to be convinced that the study just has to be wrong. Conspicuous by its absence has been any call for better numbers. So -- how about it, warbloggers? Shouldn't someone try to find out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion, and from what causes? If the study in the Lancet gives wrong figures, how would you propose we get the right ones?
And if you don't want to know the answer, or have no clue as to how to get it, please pipe down and get out of the way of those who do.
The "inconsequential" comment came from the moderator of that blog, not me.
I simply pointed out a few facts to him. I noted that Tim Lambert has explained how to reconcile the differences between the Roberts et al. study and the 'other numbers' provided by IBC and other organizations. I noted that Fumento's continued use of the phrase "the Lancet study" strongly suggests that Fumento has no real training in scientific research. Legitimate scientist uses the name of the author, not the journal. I suggested that they ask Fumento about his training in statistics and epidemiology. I suspect that Fumento has no actual training in advance statistics. Since the blog moderator noted that he had no training in statistics, it would be the blind leading the blind. It is a rather sad commentary on science in the US when the public reads about science from to politically biased writers such as Fumento and believes them. Tim Lambert, and others, are engaging in important work in trying to explain why people like Fumento are engaging in politics in their the fraudulent misuse of science.
There is yet more evidence that disputes the Lancet's findings.
Here's a UNICEF report on infant mortality in Iraq before the war;
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
If you read it, and then compare the figures with those provided by the Lancet, you'll find that;
1). The war has caused, according to Lancet figures, infant mortality to drop drastically today from those recorded by UNICEF in its pre-war study. In other words, bombing is good for them; Lancet's present day Iraqi infant mortality is HALF of UNICEF's pre-war figure.
2). The Lancet figures on pre-war infant mortality are completely out of whack with those offered by UNICEF. The Lancet estimates pre-war infant mortality to be about a quarter of what UNICEF actually worked out. UNICEF interviewed 40,000 households, the Lancet under one thousand.
Wilbur, The belief that the UNICEF Report contradicts the Roberts et al study is a common misconception. First, the UNICEF Report you referenced was based on 1999 data (as your link reveals) - the latest actual field data from them to date, I believe. Their Year 2002 infant mortality figures from UNICEF were extrapolated from this. Now this data was gathered prior to the Oil For Food program, which all reports indicate as having been highly successful. A considerable drop in infant mortality resulted. The Roberts et al figures are consistent with this. They report a figure of 107 per 1000 live births (Roberts et al, Lancet, 2004). UNICEF is currently reporting a figure of 102 for Iraq at their web site here. This figure is hardly "out of whack" with Roberts et al - actually, the agreement between the two is flat out astounding. Furthermore, even if the numbers were way out of bed with each other, an underestimated infant mortality by the Roberts et al team would imply an underestimated adult death rate as well, so that if anything, the war has caused far more than 98,000 deaths outside of Fallujah! For more on the fallacies being circulated by warbloggers about the Roberts et al study, see this excellent post at Crooked Timber which debunks the myths better than most of what I've seen so far.
Scott,
The Crooked Timber link does not solve the child mortality issue at all. I still haven't seen any supporters of the study properly address the fact that the study says infant mortality was 29/1000 before the war and 57/1000 afterwards. This is still not anywhere near the same as the Unicef figures, which involved interviewing 40,000 households. In fact if Unicef considers it to be 102/1000 today it shows things to be even more wrong with the study.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that the oil for food program did much good between 1999 (last year of the Unicef study) and 2002; very little oil for food money ended up anywhere it was supposed to. With billions being syphoned off it must have done very well indeed to get the 1999 infant mortality rate down from 131/1000 to only 29/1000 in the 2002. Of course, the 1999 figure was based on a four year study involving 40,000 households, the 2002 figures are based on a 2004 study that took a few weeks and involved less than a thousand households.
So we have Unicef siting 131/1000 in 1999 and 102/1000 today; interesting stuff.
Could you please post a link to where Roberts & co state that infant mortality mentions "They report a figure of 107 per 1000 live births" as I am unable to find it in the study.
I can see exactly what you mean when you say "underestimated infant mortality by the Roberts et al team would imply an underestimated adult death rate as well...", but my problem is that the whole study seems to have thown up such odd results that I think it's time we scrapped it and started again... the pattern of deaths in air strikes doesn't follow the pattern of air strike activity in Iraq for starters, which was at its highest much earlier in the conflict.
Wilbur, If I were you I would check the infant mortality rate in Iraq in the 1980's, before the U.S. and U.K. bombed much of their civilian infrastructure out of existence. On top of that, examine the volumes of evidence of mass deaths caused by the Anglo-American embargo which resembled a medieval siege, and left hundreds of thousands dead (that was always the intention). Before we thank the the "noble occupiers", I think its relevant to go back before Gulf War I, and to tally up the cumulative effects of that conflict, the almost daily bombing of Iraq up until 2002, and the sanctions, and then the final aggression (2003-present). The figures of Iraqi civilian dead won't make pretty reading, especially for those conned into thinking that our western governments are "noble defenders of freedom" (we are defenders alright, but of a completely different agenda).
Thanks Jeff, but changing the subject doesn't get us any closer to answering the problems raised. In fact, you've raised another one; if the pre-febuary 2003 bombing was so heavy- usually much heavier than the post may 2003 efforts, and with far less intel or accuracy- why do the patterns of deaths in air strikes not reflect this in the study?
Much as I disagree with the conclusions of this study (which seems to be a re-hash of the errors of Guilo Douhet), at least they've gone and done some research. You should do also.
Sorry, I completely forgot to mention another point raised by Jeff that is also important. He stated "If I were you I would check the infant mortality rate in Iraq in the 1980's". The problem is, this was the height of the Iran-Iraq war. At that stage, both sides where using large scale air operations with almost no guided weapons, and, due to the religous intolerences involved, far less care near civilains. So if we want to check the infant mortality of the era, we should do so- it would give another insight into the impact of combat aviation on it. Of course, if infant mortality then was lower...
Wilbur, that is a good point. But we should not use infant mortality figures as a political football to justify naked agression against Iraq, occupation and the death of perhaps a million people since 1991. Moreover, the Iraq-Iran war was wholly supported by the west, as was Saddam Hussein when he was committing his worst crimes. The west has usually had a way of dealing with some of the world's worst dictators - by supporting them. Only when the outlive their usefulness for western business and strategic interests do they suddenly become 'rogue states'. Suharto, one of the biggest torturers and mass murderers of the second half of the twentieth century was armed and fully supported by the U.S. and U.K. until he began questioning IMF policies related to Indonesia in 1995. Suddenly the western media 'discovered' some of the many atrocities he had committed since being installed in power 'with our help' in 1966. Similarly, Saddam Hussein only became a 'new Hitler' in 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. Feeble attempts to downplay clear violations of international law and to camouflage Anglo-American carnage in Iraq are already being made by many western media sources - most newspapers in the U.K., for instance, were silent over the results of the Lancet study, whereas the same outlets have made much of the estimated 300,000 victims of Saddam's repression, based on much more fragmentary data (again, while omitting the relevant connection of his crimes with western support). The media's role has always been to support the establishment, and to rally around it whenever it appears to be threatened. The Iraq war violated just about every international law, but has been "normalised" by the echo chamber, which is attempting to do the same to the growing evidence of American genocide in Iraq during the latest aggression (2003-present).
I think it might be fun as well as respectful to remind readers of Mr. Fumento's previous writing credits. After reading the linked post above, he will always be in my mind "Michael Fumento, author of The Myth Of Heterosexual AIDS".
Wilbur, as far as I can tell, I do address the issues you're talking about in the CT post. Which specific points of that post do you think are unsatisfactory?
It's pretty simple really. We have;
1). Unicef saying 131/1000 in 1999, based on a survey of 40,000 homes that used largely non-iraqi staff. You've said it was 'over 100' but that's really understating the difference a bit.
2). Roberts claiming 29/1000 in 2002, based on interviewing less than 1000 households and using English speaking Iraqi staff ( a huge problem, due to the way english was taught in iraq- since the withdrawal of the british mission in 1990, you had to have Baath patronage to learn it).
3). Roberts claiming 57/1000 in 2004, using same sources (you cited 59/1000. That's actually a pretty small error, I admit, but considering the small number of households involved, a similar error if made by the survey team compounds inaccuracy a great deal. Which is one of my many fears about the survey).
4). Unicef claiming 102/1000 today.
Now lets assume the study was understating things, and that 57/1000 should have been 102/1000. Does this mean adult casualties are higher, and that the dead are really over 200,000? And even higher if we introduce the much argued (and fumbled by Fumento) Falluja sample? Where do we stop, 300,000? As always, we reach casualty figures that haven't been spotted by anyone actually there. A case in point- a few months ago, Human Rights Watch was investigating violent deaths in the Baghdad area that it regarded as unsettled in cause. These numbered- wait for it- 94! If the study is right, we should be seeing figures a little like that in, say, Baghdad practically every day, not over many months. And this is without the other problems in the survey; the pattern of casualties from aerial bombing bears no correlation to the pattern of air war over Iraq, for starters (If it did some of the worst casualties might even have preceded the ground war). The comparison of the Lancet figures with Unicef's shows a study that is just plain weird. As I said, time to junk it and start again. Douhet made this mistake in the 1920's, it's funny to see people arguing the same stuff yet again. Might I suggest we ditch statistics, do a comprehensive survey of every morgue, hospital, grave yard and births deaths register in the country, and actually work it out for real? With an electoral roll being created it might not be as difficult as it first seems.
Wilbur you don't even seem to realize that the numbers you are throwing around are measuring different things. The 131/1000 number is under 5 mortality, not infant mortality.
And surveying every morgue etc is a lousy way to estimate the death rate. If you want better numbers you need to take a bigger random sample. This will give mush more accurate results (and cost less money).
Wilbur, its going to be very difficult to do as you have suggested because the U.S. and U.K. governments have been doing everything they can to prevent a count of civilian dead being undertaken (even by Iraqi NGO's). The reason is simple - they know the number is bound to be high (certainly much higher than IBC's estimates) and that a definitive figure - whether we are talking about 25,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or even more - is going to further illustrate the barbarity of the invasion and that it was hardly "liberation". As long as no definitive figure is provided for the number of civilians killed in Iraq by coalition bombs and artillery (except, of course for Saddam's victims), then it enables defenders of the aggression to assert that the price was worth it.
dsquared wrote:
I think it might be fun as well as respectful to remind readers of Mr. Fumento's previous writing credits. After reading the linked post above, he will always be in my mind "Michael Fumento, author of The Myth Of Heterosexual AIDS".
I'll always remember Fumento for his argument in The Myth Of Heterosexual AIDS that women act as a "firebreak" preventing HIV from being spread to straight men.
Tim- you are correct, I've made the mistake of using 131/1000 (apologies to 'dsquared', who was correct, I must admit, in his statement that they where over 100). But a look at the Unicef study shows that infant mortality in 1999 was actually 108/1000, and that it was then 102/1000 in 2004. This shows that a larger and more extensive study has shown infant mortality to have dropped very slightly. And this in turn is in complete contrast to Roberts' work. As you yourself said, "If you want better numbers you need to take a bigger random sample." Well, Unicef did. 40,000 households instead of under 1000. And is anyone at all going to take any notice of the fact that the pattern of violent deaths from aerial bombardment in the Roberts study appears to bear no resemblance to actual use of air power in the conflict? Scott also mentioned that an underestimate by the Roberts team might mean that the adult death toll was much higher; the more I consider this, the more I'm left to conclude that it doesn't work very well either, because infant mortality in both studies is a measure of overall infant mortality, not of violent deaths. We'd be comparing apples and oranges. I know my suggestion that we should ditch traditional stats techniques doesn't sit well with someone who is qualified in the field, but unfortunately my day job sees me grappling with barking mad decisions by management based on gathered statistics... when you work in a 'Dilbert' environment, I'm afraid statisticians are less than popular... ;-)
Only the 1999 UNICEF number is based on fieldwork. The 2004 number is an extrapolated number. This is covered in detail in the comments on Chris Lightfoot's site; I think there's a link to it from Tim's front page.
Oh my gosh. Michael Fumento. This brings back a few memories. He wrote some horrid dreck about how all fat people are corrupt and disgusting. I agree that there is a serious obesity crisis, but the venom he displayed towards the overweight was incredible.
Though checking out his profile, he's not exactly svelte himself.