Hint to journal editors: when a submitted manuscript (reportedly) comes with the string attached that it be published before an election, be very wary. And, do a better job of peer-review than the Lancet just did.
Or, call Shannon Love, of Chicago Boyz, and await her rewiew of survey methodology:
First, even without reading the study, alarm bells should go off. The study purports to show civilian casualties 5 to 6 times higher than any other reputable source. Most other sources put total combined civilian and military deaths from all causes at between 15,000 to 20,000. The Lancet study is a degree of magnitude higher. Why the difference?
Moreover, just rough calculations should call the figure into doubt. 100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day. Seen anything like that on the news? With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died. Heard of anything like that? In fact, heard of any air strikes at all where more than a couple of dozen people died total?
Where did this suspicious number come from? Bad methodology.
If you have the interest, read the rest.
I read about that study the other day…I was almost laughing through the whole thing. It was very clear what the authors were trying to do and it wasn’t good research.
I still have no clue how in the world they came up with those numbers–other than flat out lying. I really just don’t know.