Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  

Gabriele Zamparini's World of Hysteria™  
Posted by ALP on March 26 2008, 14:30 » Uploaded 26/3/08 15:15  

Gabriele Zamparini's campaign against "genocide deniers" (anyone who disagrees with him over Iraq mortality) continues. Remarkably, he appears to accuse Stop the War Coalition, Znet and Media Workers Against the War of being "silent" over the "scandal" of their not censoring studies which disagree with Zamparini's favoured ones (Lancet/ORB). Or something.

As well as generally irritating dissenters/campaigners (ZNet's Michael Albert calls Zamparini "contemptible") with his arrogance and paranoia, Zamparini is resorting to fairly blatant falsehoods:

"I started to write about IBC as soon as it was clear that IBC was a propaganda campaign. In other words, I started to write about this issue as soon as the first Lancet study was published [in 2004]." (Zamparini)

In fact Zamparini only started to write about the (laughably and ironically so-called) "propaganda campaign" after Medialens started their smear campaign against IBC in 2006. Between 2004 and 2006 he shared in the SHAMEFUL GUILT of the "silence" of those antiwar groups whose apparent complicity in "genocide denial" he now denounces. (Quadruple exclamation mark, anyone?)

If all of this sounds pretty weird - a sort of Stalinist Monty Python sketch, but with no laughs - then all I can say is welcome to Zamparini's World of Hysteria™

By reading as far as...................HERE, you confirm that you are a genocide denier. And, worse, you probably have a sense of humour too. You should have stopped reading after the first line. Repent before it's too late.

See also:

COMMENTS Post comment


Comment 01 – Several Famous Epidemiologists March 26 2008, 16:18

Yikes, Zamparini has really "gone off the deep end" (a bit of epidemiological jargon there - Deltoid readers may get it). He's really waging a war against epidemiology with all these claims of "genocide denial". How can scientists function properly with that denunciation hanging over their heads if they don't come up with morally correct results?

Comment 02 – Russ Bridger March 26 2008, 20:12

What a sad twit Zamparini is. I prefer him to the two Daves, though. The three are in agreement on almost everything, but Zamparini doesn't hide his hysteria up his sleeve. He doesn't have the guile, unlike the Daves. With the Daves it leaks out in "Freudian slips". LOL.

Comment 03 – SteveK March 27 2007, 12:21

There's little doubt that Zamparini is an embarrassment to the left, and in particular to MediaLens. Try sending a serious email to a journalist on an issue after Zamparini has already badgered them on similar points. You get nowhere, you just get put in the same boat as Zamparini.

Comment 04 – Julie March 27 2007, 16:14

From the latest entry in Gabriele Zamparini's blog - he receives a gracious reply from the Guardian's Michael White, and then Zamparini promptly responds by calling Michael White a genocide denier! You were right - Zamparini is out of a Monty Python sketch.[...]

Comment 05 – sonny March 28 2007, 12:57

In fact Zamparini only started to write about the (laughably and ironically so-called) "propaganda campaign" after Medialens started their smear campaign against IBC in 2006. Between 2004 and 2006 he shared in the SHAMEFUL GUILT of the "silence" of those antiwar groups whose apparent complicity in "genocide denial" he now denounces.

It's kind of hard not to fall down laughing at GZ turning reality upside down by talking of a supposed "propaganda campaign" orchestrated by IBC, be it since 2004 or whenever. The facts of the matter are that it was decided some time near the end of 2005 that Roberts and co were going to do Lancet 2 (I'm really looking forward to seeing "Lancet 3: Epidemio Boogaloo" btw, but the Americans don't go to the polls for another seven months), then just coincidentally in January 2006 right after the decision to do Lancet 2, Media Lens starts in on a 4-part assault on Iraq Body Count, closely advised by an "anonymous epidemiologist". And the gist of this campaign is to establish the notion that IBC is probably low by a factor of 10, despite the complete absence of any factual basis for such a notion, and all the evidence against it. Then, lo and behold, and just coincidentally again, Lancet 2 comes out several months later saying that IBC is.... low by a factor of 10.

Without even getting into all the self-promotion and hype since, who's really been doing a propaganda campaign here?

Comment 06 – ALP March 28 2007, 15:59

Hopefully I can sneak this in before the board shuts down? It's a letter to Gabriele Zamparini (published at Medialens), addressing Zamparini's attacks on Iraq Body Count:

Dear Gabrielle,

I share your horror at this devastating war. I have spent over a year living in Iraq volunteering with human rights groups such as Christian Peacemaker Teams, and I have lost many close Iraqi friends in this pointless war.

I also understand your frustration with much of the anti-war movement; we have failed and continue to fail the Iraqi people. Many of us have campaigned against the war as a part time hobby, or worked more towards domestic political or ideological goals rather than focusing on the suffering of Iraqis.

However John Sloboda and the other volunteers at Iraqi Body Count are among the very few people who have really gone the extra mile to advocate on behalf of Iraqi victims. I know John and the IBC team well. They are good people and firm opponents of the war who care deeply about its victims - this is why they have given over thousands of hours of their time to the traumatic task of gathering every media article related to casualties, along with data from morgues and other sources, and compiling a database with detailed and verifiable data about the victims. I have seen them at work and although they did start as "amateurs" their methodology is extremely rigourous and scientific and has been improved over time.

Of course their data is far from complete, because many deaths go unrecorded, and they recognises this. They don't present their casualty data as the totality, but just as the verifiable component. Statistical surveys can also reveal another piece of the picture, although they can also have limitations and errors. If the actual total of Iraqis killed in the last five years turns out to be nearer 90,000 than 1.2 million, is it really much less horrifying? Even the minimum figures that IBC's data reveals demonstrate what a disaster this war was.

As it happens, the IBC team's long term goal goes beyond their media analysis or the statistical surveys. They want every victim of this war (and other wars) to be recorded and remembered as named person, not just a statistic, as every US or British soldier already is. This is surely the polar opposite of propaganda for the US government or "genocide denial".

I hope you will continue to speak up for Iraqi victims and challenge the governments and people responsible for this war. Also please continue to contribute to the debate about how to accurately record and honour the victims, but there is no need to vilify people like John Sloboda who have given far more of their time and energy to speak up for justice for Iraqi victims than either of us have.

In peace,


****** letter ends ******



Post comment

Display email
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  


Optional link URL:
eg ""
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"


  Messageboard Back to top