Criticism of Lancet 2006 study
(from Dr Mark van der Laan)
For credentialists: Dr Mark van der Laan is the Jiann-Ping Hsu/Karl
E. Peace Professor in Biostatistics and Statistics at UC Berkeley.
In 2005, Dr. van der Laan received the Presidential Award of the
Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS).
On the Lancet study, Dr. van der Laan (with Leon de Winter) writes:
We conclude that it is virtually impossible to judge the value
of the original data collected in the 47 clusters. We also conclude
that the estimates based upon these data are extremely unreliable
and cannot stand a decent scientific evaluation. It may be that
the number of violent deaths is much higher than previously
reported, but this specific report, just like the October 2004
report, cannot support the estimates that have been flying around
the world on October 29, 2006. It is not science. It
is propaganda. [Emphasis added])*
*(Links previously posted in comments section here)
Criticism of IBC
To provide "balance", I should add that Iraq Body Count's
work has also been criticised. For example, Gabriele Zamparini
(a blogger) describes IBC as "amateurish"
and claims they are "deceiving" you. However this kind
of criticism seems limited to a small group of people based around
the website Medialens, Lancet co-author Les Roberts and a few
Lancet-defending (and IBC-smearing) blogs.