|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003" The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat (small d). But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he cannot himself build. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003" The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat (small d). But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he cannot himself build. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 7:25*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the rest of them are. They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous. That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country, but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above. We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:25:38 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used state-of-the-art methodology. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 4:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat (small d). "Soros whose real name is Schwartz" Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness are worth mentioning. Wikipedia says: "The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews." George was, at the time, six years old. Is Schwartz still his real name? My grandfather was from Russia and the name got changed when he emigrated. Is my real name in Cyrillic? That would explain a few things. BTW, radio personality Michael Savage's real name is Michael Weiner (no relation). Do you suppose he changed it because of the Fascist threat? (Maybe the Liberal-Fascist threat?) Or because his target audience thinks that's a funny commie name? Ben p.s. So if 150,000 people died in Iraq instead of 600,000, that makes it a success, right? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
perhaps lead to a method deriving
a number that the majority of people can agree upon. That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used state-of-the-art methodology. I didn't mean to imply that a "compromise" of numbers would be correct. My point was that it's entirely normal, even desirable, that someone who's "against" something challenges the methodology of a study. I shouldn't have added anything else to cloud that. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:25:38 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. That should be based on the best available methodology, and not as a compromise of views. From what I've read, the lancet study used state-of-the-art methodology. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue, not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind them. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Bill C" wrote in message ... On Jan 13, 7:25 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Um... so what else is new? Do you think it was the tobacco industry that funded the studies showing that cigarettes kill people? No. The tobacco industry studies claimed there was no clear link. People who DISAGREED with that... you could call them anti-tobacco if you wish... funded the studies that showed otherwise. So why in the world would anyone think that somebody supporting, or even neutral towards the war in Iraq, would question and thus fund a study challenging the previously-claimed death figures? I'm not saying that 650,000 killed is accurate, nor the 151,000. But I will suggest that the existence of both estimates might get reasonable people to question whether either one is correct and perhaps lead to a method deriving a number that the majority of people can agree upon. So what exactly was your point again? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. We find out it was as questionable and sleazy as they claimed the rest of them are. They do the same sleazy things, but claim to be utterly virtuous. That more than anything makes me crazy. That and we find Soros at the bottom of just about everything attacking the US as a scumbag country, but they variously claim, "he's not really involved", "He didn't give them money", "They didn't do that, or say that". and then we find irrefutable evidence he, and they did all of the above. We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003" 1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of 2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study. Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the purposes of public education. 2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/ MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of "excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000. 3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000. The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same period of (drumroll) 100,000. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:
Hey Mike I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. One might extend this a bit by noting that scientific studies are independent of the reporting on scientific studies. If a biased media outlet quotes a study in support of their pet positions, it doesn't necessarily mean that the cited study supports their conclusions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 19th 06 11:07 PM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 10:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |