Bush needs to clean up his mess

On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

...

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.


Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
to 'narrow' down the results.

Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
people every single year in addition to all other causes

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

...

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.


Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
to 'narrow' down the results.

Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

No, that would not narrow down the results. It would produce a
new, larger dataset with new results.


The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
people every single year in addition to all other causes

Just where in the study published in Lancet did you find that
conclusion?

--

FF