Pour le Mage Arthur :

"More responses to criticisms

In a Democracy Now ! interview , study co-author Les Roberts defended the methodology by noting that the method is the standard used in poor countries. He also said that the same method was used by the US government following wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Roberts also said that the US government’s Smart Initiative program is spending millions of dollars per year teaching NGOs and UN workers how to use the same cluster method for estimating mortality rates.[66]

The article’s authors defended their research, claiming that their work was the only active study of the death toll, and that this is more accurate than passively counting reported deaths.[26] They cited a number of factors that could lead to smaller figures from other sources ; for example, the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death. They claim that the sources of bias in their study push the figure down.

An Oct. 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports :

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method « tried and true, » and added that « this is the best estimate of mortality we have. » In a letter to The Age, published Oct. 21, 2006, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study’s « methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously. »[5]

A Reuters article reports on other researchers, epidemiologists, professors, and physicians who have defended the study. For example ; this quote from the article ;

« Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency, » said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.[67] Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in the University of Oxford, described the 2006 report as « statistically valid » in an interview on BBC television.[68]

Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes : « The US Congress should agree : in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union. »[69] Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.

October 19, 2006 Washington Post article[34] reports :

« The numbers do add up, » said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters. An October 16, 2006 MediaLens article quotes many health experts, epidemiologists, biostatistics experts, polling experts, etc. who approve of the Lancet study and methodology.[70] For example :

John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said : « The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do. » ... Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said : « They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results. » In an October 31, 2006 MediaLens article, Lancet study co-author Les Roberts responded to several questions on the report, concluding that : « Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush’s ’30,000 more or less’ figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq. »[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War