WHO Estimates 151,000 Casualties in Iraq

[Toro]

9 JANUARY 2008 | GENEVA/BAGHDAD -- A large national household survey conducted by the Iraqi government and WHO estimates that 151 000 Iraqis died from violence between March 2003 and June 2006.

The findings, published today on the web site of the New England Journal of Medicine, are based on information collected during a wider survey of family health in Iraq, designed to provide a basis for the Iraqi government to develop and update health policies and plan services.

The estimate is based on interviews conducted in 9345 households in nearly 1000 neighbourhoods and villages across Iraq. The researchers emphasize that despite the large size of the study, the uncertainty inherent in calculating such estimates led them to conclude that the number of Iraqis who died from violence during that period lies between 104 000 and 223 000.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

 

[Angel Heart]

Oh and who runs WHO?... The UN... Like we can trust their numbers. I definitely don't.

 

[CSM]

If Iraq is so dangerous I just have to ask how the interviews were conducted.

Couldn't have been by phone as we all know the Iraqiis have no services since the US invaded. Couldn't possibly have been by personal interview because the interviewers would more than like have been killed.... so how did they get the information?

 

[CSM]

Oh and who runs WHO?... The UN... Like we can trust their numbers. I definitely don't.

Well, I couldn't help but notice that the results were "compensated for under-reporting". Why didn't they compensate for "over-reporting"?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782

 

[midcan5]

God: So soon.

Son: Yes God, but I miss my wife, my daughter is only three, do you think this once I could go back and live again?

 

[MasterChief]

The report does not say WHO the instigator of the violence was in each case. We all know that the insurgents killed hundreds with a car bomb and did not bat an eye. Secondly, insurgents do not wear uniforms so if you kill one and someone comes along and takes away his AK-47: suddenly he is no longer an insurgent and turns into a civilian. These reports are just anti-American propaganda.

 

[Toro]

Oh and who runs WHO?... The UN... Like we can trust their numbers. I definitely don't.

You'd prefer Americans then?

American researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate Iraqi deaths at 600,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...6b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Annie]

You'd prefer Americans then?

American researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate Iraqi deaths at 600,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...6b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Right, from Lancet study, which was known bogus from the onset, now proven.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

 

[Dr Grump]

Right, from Lancet study, which was known bogus from the onset, now proven.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

Nothing proven. Just another biased opinion on how the study was carried out. It has neither proven nor disproven it. To be fair, neither has Lancet to any great degree..

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Right, from Lancet study, which was known bogus from the onset, now proven.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The Dirt McGirt study is far more accurate. I estimate the Iraqi deaths from 1 to 50 million and conclude with 100% accuracy that it's maybe 50% accurate that the number of dead Iraqis is perhaps a number less than 25 million, possibly.

 

[Annie]

The Dirt McGirt study is far more accurate. I estimate the Iraqi deaths from 1 to 50 million and conclude with 100% accuracy that it's maybe 50% accurate that the number of dead Iraqis is perhaps a number less than 25 million, possibly.

Sorry, Lancet beat you too it.

 

[Toro]

Right, from Lancet study, which was known bogus from the onset, now proven.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

You may very well be right Kathianne. I doubt the number is that high.

However, the methodology used by John Hopkins is similar to one endorsed by the US government to calculate the dead in other war-torn areas such as parts of Africa.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So how high is it? And how high is too high?

How many can be killed to create a western democracy in a an eastern culture?

Shit, I guess using cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods doesn't count.

Let's just admit that one hell of a lot of innocent civilians have been killed by friendly fire. Not meaning to kill them doesn't make them any less dead.

Not saying the report is completely correct, but then neither are the numbers reported by our "Pentagon"

 

[CSM]

So how high is it? And how high is too high?

I suppose if somepne had an unbiased and reliable source we would know.

How many can be killed to create a western democracy in a an eastern culture?

As many as it takes? How many can be killed by Islamic extremists before we consider them dangerous?

Shit, I guess using cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods doesn't count.

And neither do terrorists bombings of civilian gatherings.

Let's just admit that one hell of a lot of innocent civilians have been killed by friendly fire. Not meaning to kill them doesn't make them any less dead.

I'll admit that if you admit that a hell of a lot of innocent civilians are being killed by "insurgents".

Not saying the report is completely correct, but then neither are the numbers reported by our "Pentagon"

In reality, I don't think anyone really knows the numbers...nor do I believe there is a reliable way (at this time anyway) of determining what the number is.

 

[Gunny]

So how high is it? And how high is too high?

How many can be killed to create a western democracy in a an eastern culture?

Shit, I guess using cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods doesn't count.

Let's just admit that one hell of a lot of innocent civilians have been killed by friendly fire. Not meaning to kill them doesn't make them any less dead.

Not saying the report is completely correct, but then neither are the numbers reported by our "Pentagon"

I'd say there are less dead from NOT being targetted by us than there are from being targetted by their own people.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Oh and who runs WHO?... The UN... Like we can trust their numbers. I definitely don't.

The study was done in conjunction with the Iraqi government itself.

I don't think you want to believe any casualty estimates, whether its from the Iraqi Government, the UN, or independent academic researchers. Probably because you support bush, and don't want to acknowledge the death and bloodshed your war has cost.

 

[Annie]

There may be a reason those numbers were so off in the Lancet study:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece?Submitted=true

From The Sunday Times
January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

The is the price they pay for us to bring them our freedom.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Hmmm. Kind of thought that number might actually be a bit higher, but we will never know for sure.

To put casualty numbers in perspective I like to use Vietnam and WWII. The media these days make 1000 casualties seem like 100,000 from 60 years ago. We've lost roughly 3200 troops in Iraq. We lost an average of 3200 a QUARTER in Vietnam, we lost 5200 on the first DAY of D-Day. Total casualties in WWII were somewhere between 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 world wide. About 35,000,000 or so were military or para-military. The rest were civilians. The fire-bombing of Tokyo by our B-29's killed over 150,000 Japanese civilians in ONE NIGHT. And no one in the Allied media in those days batted an eye....