Add new comment

Hi Sheldon, I wondered if you could comment on a response to your article (by myself) at Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44459/ Gilbert Burnham (Lancet study co-author) has stated that: <i>"As far as selection of the start houses, in areas where there were residential streets that <b>did not cross</b> the main avenues in the area selected, these were included in the random street selection process, in an effort to reduce the selection bias that <b>more busy streets</b> would have."</i> (My bold) http://tinyurl.com/yltzr8 In other words, Burnham seems to be acknowledging that there is a bias from sampling close to (or on) main streets. (Apparently contrary to what Les Roberts and yourself imply: that there is no evidence for such a bias). Burnham's statement also contradicts the description of the methodology published in the Lancet: <i>"The third stage consisted of random selection of a main street within the administrative unit from a list of all main streets. A residential street was then randomly selected from a list of residential streets <b>crossing</b> the main street."</i> (My bold) The latter (from the published methodology) is precisely what the main street bias criticism addresses. (It holds that the study is unrepresentative of the population of Iraq since it surveys only houses that are "located on <b>cross streets</b> next to main roads or on the main road itself" [my bold]) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm Given your intention to <i>clarify</i> criticisms of the Lancet study, do your comments on main street bias (in light of the above) not strike you as unsatisfactory (if not misleading)? I'd be grateful if you could investigate further and perhaps supply an update on main street bias. I notice also that you imply scientific approval of the Lancet study has been unanimous (<i>"The scientists, however, gave it high marks"</i>). However, Debarati Guha-Sapir (director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels) says that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. And Jon Pedersen, director of the ILCS study (which you omit to mention in your article, even though it uses a methodology similar to the Lancet study's) says the Lancet figure is "high, and probably way too high". http://tinyurl.com/yygn5z